Not only did the adviser suggest that the case should not be dropped, but he also suggested Flynn should now face additional charges – based on the prosecutors’ own words, as well as Flynn’s conflicting statements!
“Gleeson emphasized that DOJ has never conceded one of Flynn’s central points: that his guilty plea was the product of prosecutorial misconduct. And that discrepancy, he says, tears the cover off the pretext for dismissing the case. Gleeson also argued that Flynn should be punished for additional “perjurious” statements during earlier proceedings in the case, such as asserting in court under oath that he wasn’t coerced into pleading guilty. He has since claimed prosecutors threatened to prosecute his son, Michael Flynn Jr., if he didn’t plead guilty — a contention DOJ has rejected.”
“[I]n refuting Flynn’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct as ‘unfounded,’ the Government makes clear there was no prosecutorial misconduct, coercion, or secret deals,” Gleeson argues. “Thus, in defense of its Rule 48(a) motion, the Government confirms that Flynn not only lied to this Court but is now doubling down by continuing to submit false allegations of prosecutorial misconduct to excuse his false denial of guilt.”
That’s the impression I got from Dark Towers (Enrich) and other sources.
Brilliance and the Orange Buffoon aren’t usually found together but he has been downright brilliant in being able to skate away from fiascoes while leaving his lenders holding the bag. And even more brilliant in actually being able to persuade banks to lend to him thereafter. As the creature has often said, “I take full advantage of the bankruptcy laws”.
My understanding is that eventually the only bank on earth that would return Trump’s calls was Deutsche Bank in Germany, and that seems to have been due to Russia. Presumably they realized he could be useful for money laundering, which seems to be how Trump rebuilt some wealth.
Beyond a reasonable doubt … “Say, in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo, and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Don, Jr.
Thanks, Tanner. I forgot that was another thing the Trumps simply admitted doing because they didn’t CARE if they were laundering Russian money.
I really don’t know if the charges against Flynn should be dropped or not. But one thing I am sure of is Judge Sullivan should recuse himself from any further involvement in this case. Federal law requires recusal whenever there are facts that could reasonably cast doubt on a Judge’s impartiality. Appointing John Gleeson to argue against the governments position just days after Gleeson had an op-ed published in the Washington Post arguing the case shouldn’t be dismissed might have been fine since Gleeson was appointed to be an advocate. But when a 3 judge panel ordered Sullivan to dismiss the case, Sullivan appealed the ruling (successfully) to the full circuit. When he did that, he became a party in the case he is presiding over as a judge. It may well have been the correct outcome legally, but the appearance of impartiality is gone. Perhaps, despite Gleeson’s argument, and his own appealing of an order to do so, Sullivan will grant the government’s motion. But if he doesn’t, he cannot continue to preside in the case. Ultimately, one way or another Flynn will receive a pardon in a few months so it won’t matter. But it is unethical for Sullivan not to recuse himself. But that probably won’t stop a President Biden from nominating him for an appeals court.
How did you ever pass the bar?
What’s unethical and likely illegal is the DOJ conduct in this case. It’s what happens in banana republics.
I passed the bar by studying with this awesome Micro Mash bar review software that just asked me multiple choice Multistate questions. I’d highly recommend them but I don’t know if they still exist. One of the most difficult things I found with those questions was having to pick the “most correct” answer when there were arguably multiple correct ones. But you can’t argue with a computer (at least not successfully) and eventually I came to understand what the Multi State thought were the right answers.
That was quite different from law school exams which are almost always just essays where you are given a fact pattern and need to, in part, identify as many of the issues that flow from that fact pattern as possible.
I went into that rather long response to an insult to make a point. It is possible for many different things to be true at the same time. It is possible that the DOJ conduct was unethical and illegal. Though I am not sure what law you believe was violated. I am not arguing with you, I am just curious. It is also quite possible the judges actions were unethical and illegal. Well illegal only if he doesn’t recuse himself. Maybe you feel Judge Sullivan’s actions were justified by the DOJ’s actions. But it doesn’t work that way or at least it shouldn’t.
It would be wisest if the additional perjury charges are not brought against Flynn. If he is sentenced and pardoned, it is unlikely that Trump would give him a blanket Nixon-like pardon, which would then give a non-corrupt DOJ under the new attorney general the ability to convict him on those other instances of perjury, one of which is a slam dunk case, given that he contradicted himself under oath, meaning that one or the other must be a lie.
As to whether the charges against Flynn should be dropped, that depends on your definition of “should” and whether you mean “morally should” or “legally should.”
Is Flynn guilty? Yes, 100%.
Is the DOJ decision corrupt? Yes, 100%.
But – is the judge within his rights to conduct his own case after the prosecutors have dropped it? There’s the problem. THAT is a legal morass which means the aforementioned “should” is debatable. Ask 100 judges, and 100 scholars and they might split down the middle. That one will probably drag through the courts for quite a while longer.
Totally agree. The system was just not designed for a DOJ that would act in the partisan interests of the President in this way.
I am genuinely surprised that more of the career prosecutors haven’t resigned. I guess they hope Biden will win and normalcy will return. But federal prosecutors are mostly in it to help the public—they could make a whole lot more money in private practice.
The problem is not just that the President is acting like a tyrant and has found the perfect Attorney General to help him. It is also that enough of the American People support him to have elected a pro-tyranny majority to the Senate, preventing the President’s impeachment. (Yes, yes, I know they would deny being pro-tyranny. What matters is what they dp, not what they say.)
That is NOT a majority of the American people. It is an effect of the way the Senate was created, which gives people in low-population states representation in the Senate disproportionate to their numbers. It was not too bad when the population of the US was as small as it was in 1789. It has become vastly disproportionate and wildly destructive now.
Well said.
It’s an adversarial system. The judge isn’t conducting his own case, he’s just appointing a lawyer to the side that doesn’t have one. They appoint special masters all the time to go through private docs and decide what’s relevant to a case. This is almost completely unlike that, but a judge having someone look into a thing isn’t necessarily shady.
Like any plea deal, just because the defense and prosecution agree on something doesn’t oblige the judge to OK it.
Boy, those years of watching Law and Order are really paying off!
That is one opinion. It is not necessarily the correct legal opinion. As I mentioned, people are split on the propriety of this, and not just on party or ideological lines. It’ll find its way through the courts.
Yes, I agree. I tend to think it’s correct, it is *my* opinion. And people may disagree, the honest ones might even decide based on something other than their preferred outcome.
I’ve come around some myself on special masters, When renowned Oregon shitbag wanted to introduce only part of his diary I was all “If you’re so worried about your privacy, you have the option of not introducing your own fucking diary into evidence.” Since then, I’ve thought about it and I’m OK with redacting the irrelevant.
You’ve got to admit though, in this case “find its way through the courts” is a synonym for “have a chance to get whitewashed after everyone has forgotten about this”.
If you look at Trump’s history pre-politics, you’ll see that delaying long enough to “have a chance to get whitewashed after everyone has forgotten about this” (or until he has a chance to destroy evidence) has always been his standard M.O. The one thing he has truly done brilliantly in his life is to understand and exploit the slow process inherent to the American judicial system.
If he coached a sports team, his signature strategy would be running out the clock.
An intelligent assessment of DOJ in the Flynn case
Counterpoint here
I agree about the adversarial process, which is why I don’t necessarily see the appointment of Gleeson as a problem. But the judge is not supposed to be an adversary. Judges must be impartial and almost as importantly must be seen as impartial by the general public. The Gleeson appointment, while perhaps preserving the adversarial nature made many people question Sullivan’s impartiality. Granted those people were mostly Trump supporters. But the moment Judge Sullivan filed his own appeal of a decision by an appeals court, he for all intents and purposes abandoned impartiality because he became a party in the case. I can’t say it’s never happened before, but I have never heard of a judge filing his or her own appeal of an appellate ruling they disagreed with.
A significant part of this country believe that Trump is evil and must be stopped and that Trump supporters are evil and must be stopped. So if a government official or judge bends or even breaks a rule in the interests of stopping Trump or bringing a Trump supporter to justice, well that’s OK. But Trump will be gone, maybe in 4 months, maybe in 4 years. But the precedents set in the hopes of stopping Trump will remain. That is why I think Judge Sullivan should recuse himself. It is what is required both by the Canons of Judicial Ethics and federal law. Nobody likes it when guilty men go free because of a technicality. But those technicalities exist to protect the rights of everyone.