DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case) (2 Viewers)

[BobE]

 

[TaylorB]

The Court-appointed amicus curiae filed his brief in the Flynn case. It is a brutal and methodical deconstruction of the disinformation propagated about Flynn's case as a result of Barr's Motion to Dismiss:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.223.2_3.pdf

The chances Sullivan dismisses Flynn's case are minuscule; rather, I think it's even more likely he considers perjury as an enhancement for his false statements case than that he dismisses it. Flynn's best hope for a dismissal is that he gets a politically favorable panel in DC Appeals, and even then, he still might be hosed.

The odds of pardons for Flynn and Stone went through the ceiling today, and will go higher if Trump doesn't rebound in the polls in the coming months. He will care much less about the optics of the pardons and much more about what Flynn and Stone might say to law enforcement if he's not in office in 2021.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Personally, I'm rooting for a Biden win and Kamala Harris being nominated as AG. I'd love for her to go after trump's criminal enterprise.

 

[The moose]

Personally, I'm rooting for a Biden win and Kamala Harris being nominated as AG. I'd love for her to go after trump's criminal enterprise.

Yep Harris would be spectacular at taking down that group. That group is huge could go after all kinds of people that were made richer during the pandemic PPE sales. The list of business cronies that got paid for supporting him is huge.

Heck might be even more entertaining than billions.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

The Court-appointed amicus curiae filed his brief in the Flynn case. It is a brutal and methodical deconstruction of the disinformation propagated about Flynn's case as a result of Barr's Motion to Dismiss:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.223.2_3.pdf

The chances Sullivan dismisses Flynn's case are minuscule; rather, I think it's even more likely he considers perjury as an enhancement for his false statements case than that he dismisses it. Flynn's best hope for a dismissal is that he gets a politically favorable panel in DC Appeals, and even then, he still might be hosed.

The odds of pardons for Flynn and Stone went through the ceiling today, and will go higher if Trump doesn't rebound in the polls in the coming months. He will care much less about the optics of the pardons and much more about what Flynn and Stone might say to law enforcement if he's not in office in 2021.

Damn. By page 12, he's laid everything as clear as can be. The remaining pages are just added gravy.

 

[TaylorB]

Damn. By page 12, he's laid everything as clear as can be. The remaining pages are just added gravy.

My favorite part so far is the rebuttal of Barr's claim that the Government couldn't prove Flynn lied. The passages I'm referring to start on page 52 at "[t]he Government first suggests..." and go down through the long paragraph ending on page 53.

Gleeson lists 5 reasons why the circumstances surrounding the Flynn-Kislyak call cast doubt on Barr's claim. When you read those reasons -- in addition to the statement that after reading the call transcript, “McGahn and Priebus concluded that Flynn could not have forgotten the details of the discussions of sanctions and had instead been lying about what he discussed with Kislyak” -- it is absolutely inconceivable to think Flynn simply "forgot." As noted by Gleeson, "[Flynn] was the National Security Advisor to the President. His job was to remember things..."

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

Note that it is unlikely that DOJ would seek further review (either en banc or SCOTUS). But under appellate rules, the D.C. Cir. itself (by a majority vote of judges) can have it re-heard en banc (full court instead of normal 3-judge panel).

It is considered unusual/disfavored. But possible.

 

[DaveXA]

Note that it is unlikely that DOJ would seek further review (either en banc or SCOTUS). But under appellate rules, the D.C. Cir. itself (by a majority vote of judges) can have it re-heard en banc (full court instead of normal 3-judge panel).

It is considered unusual/disfavored. But possible.

I haven't followed this case closely, and haven't read this thread yet, but I'm not seeing why the DOJ would want further review if the Appeals court has already validated that the DOJ's dropping of the case was allowable. Unless I'm misunderstanding the Appellate ruling.

 

[superchuck500]

I haven't followed this case closely, and haven't read this thread yet, but I'm not seeing why the DOJ would want further review if the Appeals court has already validated that the DOJ's dropping of the case was allowable. Unless I'm misunderstanding the Appellate ruling.

That's precisely the point - here, DOJ is now aligned with the defendant. The district judge didn't like the way the DOJ shift in posture smelled (politically motivated) and used the unusual procedure of effectively farming out the prosecutorial discretion to an amicus.

So with the DC Cir. panel ordering the government's motion to dismiss (voluntary) to be granted, there's no party with an interest to seek further review. The court, however, still can do it under circuit rules.

 

[DaveXA]

That's precisely the point - here, DOJ is now aligned with the defendant. The district judge didn't like the way the DOJ shift in posture smelled (politically motivated) and used the unusual procedure of effectively farming out the prosecutorial discretion to an amicus.

So with the DC Cir. panel ordering the government's motion to dismiss (voluntary) to be granted, there's no party with an interest to seek further review. The court, however, still can do it under circuit rules.

So, do we wait for word from the court? Or is this just something that will be a possible option in the future? I can't imagine Flynn would want this hanging over his head. I would think his career options would be severely limited at least until that's completely ruled out.

 

[TaylorB]

So, do we wait for word from the court? Or is this just something that will be a possible option in the future? I can't imagine Flynn would want this hanging over his head. I would think his career options would be severely limited at least until that's completely ruled out.

I'm not versed in DC appellate procedure, but if the rules permit one of the appeals judges to request en banc review, my money is on that happening. En banc is when the entire appellate panel hears the case, not just the 3 judge panel who decided the mandamus. As you and Chuck noted, the DOJ and Flynn aren't likely to seek further review, so I think it would have to come from a judge.

Even if this got overturned by an en banc panel, it's likely a big win for Flynn regardless, because the final vote will likely fall along roughly partisan lines and give them more cover to pardon him if his motion to dismiss still unravels. Or it could drag it out beyond the election and Trump could pardon him without worrying about political fallout, if he wins. Or, of course, it could just not go to en banc review and Flynn could be freed.

My money was on 2-1 against Flynn on the mandamus. Henderson is the surprise vote here, as even though she's a GOP nominee, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and that legal issue didn't seem like a close call to many people. Had Sullivan conducted a hearing and then refused to dismiss, and then had that refusal been appealed to this panel, the outcome would have been less surprising, to me at least. Curious to see legal analysis from better minds.

 

[FullMonte]

Personally, I'm rooting for a Biden win and Kamala Harris being nominated as AG. I'd love for her to go after trump's criminal enterprise.

While it would never happen....from an "entertainment" standpoint..I have a better idea for the AG to go after Trump's criminal enterprise. There's this guy who was born in Hawaii (but some people think it was Kenya), who's a constitutional lawyer with experience at the highest levels of federal government.......

 

[DaveXA]

While it would never happen....from an "entertainment" standpoint..I have a better idea for the AG to go after Trump's criminal enterprise. There's this guy who was born in Hawaii (but some people think it was Kenya), who's a constitutional lawyer with experience at the highest levels of federal government.......

Now that would be entertaining as fork. But, probably not healthy for the country, lol.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Now that would be entertaining as fork. But, probably not healthy for the country, lol.

I tend to agree. However, that situation would be no more detrimental to the health of the country than the current president and AG, no?

 

[surada]

I tend to agree. However, that situation would be no more detrimental to the health of the country than the current president and AG, no?

Bill Barr called to resign by vast majority of law professors at his alma mater

Faculty members at the George Washington University Law School are calling on one of their most famous alumnus to resign.Law and Crime News reports that 80 percent of GWU Law School law professors and deans this week signed a letter demanding Barr's resignation, as well as encouraging lawmakers...

www.rawstory.com

 

[DaveXA]

I tend to agree. However, that situation would be no more detrimental to the health of the country than the current president and AG, no?

No, but, I'd hope we left that insanity behind by then. I'd just as soon move on to other things. I'm disillusioned enough with politics as it is.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm not versed in DC appellate procedure, but if the rules permit one of the appeals judges to request en banc review, my money is on that happening. En banc is when the entire appellate panel hears the case, not just the 3 judge panel who decided the mandamus. As you and Chuck noted, the DOJ and Flynn aren't likely to seek further review, so I think it would have to come from a judge.

Even if this got overturned by an en banc panel, it's likely a big win for Flynn regardless, because the final vote will likely fall along roughly partisan lines and give them more cover to pardon him if his motion to dismiss still unravels. Or it could drag it out beyond the election and Trump could pardon him without worrying about political fallout, if he wins. Or, of course, it could just not go to en banc review and Flynn could be freed.

My money was on 2-1 against Flynn on the mandamus. Henderson is the surprise vote here, as even though she's a GOP nominee, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and that legal issue didn't seem like a close call to many people. Had Sullivan conducted a hearing and then refused to dismiss, and then had that refusal been appealed to this panel, the outcome would have been less surprising, to me at least. Curious to see legal analysis from better minds.

I'm with you on the en banc prospects. The whole thing is so unusual (including granting a writ of mandamus) that it seems reasonable that the court would rehear it en banc.

 

[DaveXA]

I'm with you on the en banc prospects. The whole thing is so unusual (including granting a writ of mandamus) that it seems reasonable that the court would rehear it en banc.

Is there a timeline for when we might get an answer on this?