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

[BobE]

 

[TaylorB]

It did seem like the writ of mandamus was premature considering Sullivan hadn't ruled on the case. Could the writ of mandamus be revisited after Sullivan rules if needed? The fact the the Mueller prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense that contradicted their case should factor in Sullivan's decision, but he doesn't seem reasonable especially after his odd amicus decision.

They won’t need mandamus because Flynn would have the right to appeal straight to DC appeals, so there’s nothing to force the district court to do by mandamus. It’s the DC circuit’s call on the merits of the appeal at that point.

Your jab about Sullivan being unreasonable simply because he appointed amicus is characteristically light on analysis and heavy on partisan rhetoric. There’s plenty of precedent for that decision, and it’s logical in this instance.

 

[SaintForLife]

They won’t need mandamus because Flynn would have the right to appeal straight to DC appeals, so there’s nothing to force the district court to do by mandamus. It’s the DC circuit’s call on the merits of the appeal at that point.

Your jab about Sullivan being unreasonable simply because he appointed amicus is characteristically light on analysis and heavy on partisan rhetoric. There’s plenty of precedent for that decision, and it’s logical in this instance.

What about the fact that Sullivan had already said that an amicus isn't used in criminal cases? Sullivan's order:

This Court has received several motions to intervene/file an amicus brief along with letters in support from a private individual who is neither a party to this case nor counsel of record for any party. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases.

...Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court’s docket is not an available option.

What about Sullivan's lack of concern about the Mueller prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense that contradicted their case? Or Sullivan not caring about how the FBI "lost" the original 302 on Flynn? He said sometimes things just get lost.

 

[TaylorB]

What about the fact that Sullivan had already said that an amicus isn't used in criminal cases? Sullivan's order:

This Court has received several motions to intervene/file an amicus brief along with letters in support from a private individual who is neither a party to this case nor counsel of record for any party. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal cases.

...Options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court’s docket is not an available option.

What about Sullivan's lack of concern about the Mueller prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense that contradicted their case? Or Sullivan not caring about how the FBI "lost" the original 302 on Flynn? He said sometimes things just get lost.

I see, you jumped into the discussion we were having about mandamus and amicus so you could bait someone into another grievance-airing rant about Sullivan. You can read my legitimate response to Jim’s legitimate questions if you’re really interested in my thoughts on amicus, which is at least responsive to grievance #1 in this post. Otherwise, I’m good.

Maybe the appeals court will agree with you. Undercover Huber was really excited about the mandamus. Nearly all lawyers giving genuine legal analysis knew it was a really, really bad case for mandamus. It was a terrible case for mandamus and it was shocking to me that Henderson went for it (Rao was a Trump appointee, so I wasn’t sure).

The arguments for denying the DOJ motion to dismiss are really strong, but they’re not invincible. You’re really dismissive of Sullivan because you’re dismissive of everything bad for Flynn, not because his case is strong. If you are right, it will be made right, either by Sullivan or by the court of appeals. But there are lots of things about Flynn’s case you think are a big deal because you’re being told they are. Sullivan is an R appointee [edit: he’s actually a bipartisan appointee], by the way, but you reject bipartisan senate reports that don’t favor trump, so what are we to make of your criticisms here?

 

[SaintForLife]

I see, you pretended to participate in the discussion we were having about mandamus and amicus so you could bait someone into another grievance-airing rant about Sullivan. You can read my legitimate response to Jim’s legitimate questions if you’re really interested in my thoughts on amicus, which is at least responsive to grievance #1 in this post. Otherwise, I’m good.

Lol seriously? You responded to my post and then I responded to yours.

I understand it's hard for you to respond to the fact that Sullivan contradicted his own order and statement that Federal rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow amicus in criminal cases. They are only allowed in civil cases. But feel free to make up whatever scenario that lets you avoid having to explain Sullivan not following his own order.

 

[TaylorB]

Lol seriously? You responded to my post and then I responded to yours.

I understand it's hard for you to respond to the fact that Sullivan contradicted his own order and statement that Federal rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow amicus in criminal cases. They are only allowed in civil cases. But feel free to make up whatever scenario that lets you avoid having to explain Sullivan not following his own order.

I edited my post, as it was a bit harsh. My reasons on amicus are in my response to Jim.

 

[RobF]

Lol seriously? You responded to my post and then I responded to yours.

I understand it's hard for you to respond to the fact that Sullivan contradicted his own order and statement that Federal rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow amicus in criminal cases. They are only allowed in civil cases. But feel free to make up whatever scenario that lets you avoid having to explain Sullivan not following his own order.

@TaylorB's understanding and ability to respond would seem to be just fine. As he said before:

Per that analysis, it’s appropriate to appoint amicus when the government “orphans” an argument by abandoning it. It’s unnecessary in every other plea situation to appoint amicus because the government presumably favors the decision to force the plea and sentencing. When the government abandons the position, even though it’s in the hands of the judiciary after the plea in this case, it’s helpful to have amicus present the abandoned argument because Flynn isn’t without legal remedies, like post-sentencing appeals, or as here, a pending motion to dismiss by DOJ.

That is an analysis that I think is in line with this one, for example, from the NJ Law Journal Editorial Board: https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2020/05/26/appropriate-to-appoint-an-amicus-in-the-flynn-case/

@SaintForLife, I'd suggest that the problem is on your end here, since you appear to be disregarding context entirely. To take the understanding that you're trying to put forward, you would have to assume that the statement "the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal case" is a completely sweeping blanket statement that applies not just in the context being addressed but under any and all circumstances, regardless of any possible contrary circumstances or authority. But that's clearly not the case, even just from the order you've quoted - a contrary legal authority is considered and dismissed, because that possibility exists. Stating that something is not provided for in one context, and that contrary legal authority is "neither persuasive nor applicable" in that context, does not rule out the possibility that in another context it may be provided for and that legal authority may be both persuasive and applicable in allowing it to be so in said context. As here, where it can be - and it appears, is? - that "the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for intervention by third parties in criminal case" in the ordinary procedure of things, but (to quote the linked NJ Law Journal commentary):

"... this case presents the possibility that the decision to abandon a prosecution is an improper one. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48, like our Rule of Court 3:25, requires judicial approval to dismiss an indictment. The federal rule requires the defendant to show “a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.”​

​

The appointment of an amicus in our adversary system serves the important purpose of open adjudication. The amicus is commissioned to develop arguments for the judge’s consideration. That gives the parties—the DOJ and the defendant Flynn—the opportunity to meet those arguments, and to develop the record for the likely appeal. The motion will be argued in open court—far preferable to the judge quietly researching and pondering in camera. With amicus and the parties presenting their arguments the press and public will have much better ability to assess the merits of the contending views, increasing confidence in the judge’s decision.​

​

The inherent logic of Rule 48 and its origins show that a judge’s approval is not a mechanical checkoff, but rather a way to protect the public interest in the integrity of the criminal justice system. Judge Sullivan’s decision to appoint an amicus is a proper exercise of a judge’s work as independent finder of fact and law in our adversary system."​

That seems to be entirely coherent and consistent.

 

[Saintamaniac]

"The inherent logic of Rule 48 and its origins show that a judge’s approval is not a mechanical checkoff, but rather a way to protect the public interest in the integrity of the criminal justice system. Judge Sullivan’s decision to appoint an amicus is a proper exercise of a judge’s work as independent finder of fact and law in our adversary system."

This is exactly what happened in this case. Sullivan's decision strongly suggest he felt compelled to take this course under the dubious conditions that the government's decision to drop the case was based. Otherwise simply going along is being complicit to what is being attempted. Some people aren't willing to easily and haphazardly toss away a reputation and career they spent a lifetime building.

 

[SaintForLife]

I had forgot that the Obama administration spied on a Republican campaign besides Trump's. Not worth starting a new thread so I'll just post it hear.