DOJ dropping criminal case against Gen Flynn (UPDATE: DC Cir. dismisses case) (3 Viewers)

[BobE]

 

[TaylorB]

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

My guess is that we'll know relatively soon if there's a request by one of the judges for en banc hearing -- like this week or next. Some self-proclaimed legal scholar on twitter noted that once requested, it requires 6 votes in favor of hearing it en banc, which would make sense if correct (not sure if that is a majority?). I am unsure of the timing of that vote, but I've got a hunch that this will be on the front-burner compared to typical cases, especially if the DC Appeals Circuit feels like there's a gross departure from the norm by the panel in this case.

 

[surada]

All Barr's law professors have asked him to resign.

 

[BobE]

All Barr's law professors have asked him to resign.

O.K.

 

[DaveXA]

All Barr's law professors have asked him to resign.

I'm not sure what that means, if anything. Law professors are law professors. They're probably professors for a reason, lol.

 

[MT15]

There’s this opinion as well from a principled conservative.

 

[surada]

I'm not sure what that means, if anything. Law professors are law professors. They're probably professors for a reason, lol.

Barr has sold out...

 

[insidejob]

I'm not sure what that means, if anything. Law professors are law professors. They're probably professors for a reason, lol.

One of the GW Law professors is testifying as we speak in front of the judiciary committee. I'd say they're pretty well respected.

 

[DaveXA]

There’s this opinion as well from a principled conservative.

All that may be possible, maybe even likely, but I'm well past caring at this point. All I care about is what happens in November.

If we reelect Trump, we get what we deserve.

 

[DaveXA]

One of the GW Law professors is testifying as we speak in front of the judiciary committee. I'd say they're pretty well respected.

Being respected, and having real authority are two different things.

 

[insidejob]

Being respected, and having real authority are two different things.

Well of course they have no authority to get him removed, but it speaks volumes when you're entire alma mater's law school thinks you should be removed. Pretty powerful statement.

 

[JimEverett]

My guess is that we'll know relatively soon if there's a request by one of the judges for en banc hearing -- like this week or next. Some self-proclaimed legal scholar on twitter noted that once requested, it requires 6 votes in favor of hearing it en banc, which would make sense if correct (not sure if that is a majority?). I am unsure of the timing of that vote, but I've got a hunch that this will be on the front-burner compared to typical cases, especially if the DC Appeals Circuit feels like there's a gross departure from the norm by the panel in this case.

There are 12 full-time judges, so it would take 7, not 6

 

[TaylorB]

There are 12 full-time judges, so it would take 7, not 6

I think it's 11 full-time judges at the moment.

 

[FullMonte]

Here's my question for the legal experts...it's not something I want to see, but I wonder if it's a procedural possibility.

So, the DOJ has dropped the case against Flynn and he has withdrawn his guilty plea. If a new administration takes over next January, could the DOJ move forward and prosecute Flynn for his actions?

 

[DaveXA]

Well of course they have no authority to get him removed, but it speaks volumes when you're entire alma mater's law school thinks you should be removed. Pretty powerful statement.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'm just not sure what difference it makes in the end.

 

[DaveXA]

Here's my question for the legal experts...it's not something I want to see, but I wonder if it's a procedural possibility.

So, the DOJ has dropped the case against Flynn and he has withdrawn his guilty plea. If a new administration takes over next January, could the DOJ move forward and prosecute Flynn for his actions?

I suspect they'd have to get him on something else. I think the whole point of going after him was to get him to spill the beans on the Administration. I think that would be moot by then.

 

[stevo3]

Good for Michael Flynn!!! That's great news. Finally some actual justice is served in the whole Russiagate Hoax!

Too bad he has basically been bankrupted in the process of trying to keep himself out of prison for such fallacious charges...

 

[TaylorB]

Here's my question for the legal experts...it's not something I want to see, but I wonder if it's a procedural possibility.

So, the DOJ has dropped the case against Flynn and he has withdrawn his guilty plea. If a new administration takes over next January, could the DOJ move forward and prosecute Flynn for his actions?

I suspect they'd have to get him on something else. I think the whole point of going after him was to get him to spill the beans on the Administration. I think that would be moot by then.

As to whether the new DOJ could prosecute him in general, sure. No reason he couldn’t be prosecuted for crimes he’s already committed which were not part of the false statements case, or for new crimes.

As to whether the new DOJ could prosecute him for the same false statements case, I *think* it depends on whether Sullivan ultimately dismissed it “with prejudice” or ”without prejudice,” which wasn’t addressed in the mandamus order, assuming the mandamus isn’t overturned en banc. If it’s dismissed without prejudice, I think it could be re-charged later. But I’m not sure about that.

I think Dave is right in the sense that there might not be as good of a reason to prosecute for the false statements case because his cooperation is no longer relevant, or as relevant. The government still does have a substantial interest in penalizing people who thwart investigations by lying to investigators, which is true regardless of how useful he is to them as a cooperating witness, but it might not be the best use of resources to re-charge that particular case. And that’d be especially true if they had a bigger crime to go after him for, which is not inconceivable based on his behavior circa 2015-2017.

 

[JimEverett]

As to whether the new DOJ could prosecute him in general, sure. No reason he couldn’t be prosecuted for crimes he’s already committed which were not part of the false statements case, or for new crimes.

As to whether the new DOJ could prosecute him for the same false statements case, I *think* it depends on whether Sullivan ultimately dismissed it “with prejudice” or ”without prejudice,” which wasn’t addressed in the mandamus order, assuming the mandamus isn’t overturned en banc. If it’s dismissed without prejudice, I think it could be re-charged later. But I’m not sure about that.

I think Dave is right in the sense that there might not be as good of a reason to prosecute for the false statements case because his cooperation is no longer relevant, or as relevant. The government still does have a substantial interest in penalizing people who thwart investigations by lying to investigators, which is true regardless of how useful he is to them as a cooperating witness, but it might not be the best use of resources to re-charge that particular case. And that’d be especially true if they had a bigger crime to go after him for, which is not inconceivable based on his behavior circa 2015-2017.

The Circuit Court ordered Sullivan to grant the DOJ's Motion. That motion sought dismissal with prejudice. I guess Sullivan could grant the dismissal without prejudice, but that would seem to go against what the Circuit Court has ordered.