Thread: We have a new filing in the Flynn case in the District Court (Judge Sullivan). A number of federal prosecutors, former Watergate prosecutors, AUSAs and assorted other luminaries have filed a request to file an amicus brief with the court. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.212.0.pdf

(Hey, Judge Sullivan opened the door.) Included in the luminaries are some names you may instantly recognize; Kenneth Starr, Trey Gowdy, Margot Cleveland, Robert Bittman (Whitewater), Robert Harvey (Former Judge Advocate General, USN), & Kevin A. Sharp (former US District Judge)

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.212.5.pdf

In their brief, they basically eviscerate the oppositions brief (submitted to the appeals court). https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.212.4.pdf There’s little left to their argument except a smoking crater.

They point out that they have misconstrued the law in the cases they cite, ignored both the Supreme Court’s and the DC Appeals Court’s previous rulings, and made a mockery of the Constitution.

“The issue presented in this case is whether the court has discretion to deny a motion to dismiss to which the defendant consents, as Gen. Flynn has done here. The answer is no.” That’s the first sentence! Not only do they raise the Fokker case, decided by the DC Appeals Court,

and not only do they also bring up the Rinaldi case, decided by the Supreme Court, but they even sprinkle a 2003 decision by the 7th Circuit all holding the same thing - Judge Sullivan - you cannot do what you are trying to do. The Constitution forbids it.

But they don’t stop there. They directly attack the so-called Watergate Investigators fallacious arguments, ripping them to shreds.

“Thus, amici’s argument runs headlong into the separation of powers. They are urging this court to do exactly what the Supreme Court has specifically said it cannot do.” Nudge, nudge, um Judge, you cannot do this, and if you do, you’ll be overruled.

“The other arguments against dismissal advanced by amici are equally spurious.” I love the language used in this brief. They do not mince any words.

“and argue that a guilty plea “completes” the prosecution, thus, in their view, giving the court a stake in the decision concerning whether the case should proceed to sentencing.”
I pointed this out the other day. A guilty plea is NOT a conviction.

The brief backs that up with legal cites.

They go on to show that the court cannot find Flynn in contempt for attempting to remove his guilty plea and rub the Court’s own Brady order in its face, pointing out that the Brady order was the very thing that led the case to this point where the US finally admitted its guilt.

The get to the crux of the matter by pointing out that the amici’s brief is results driven.

If Sullivan has a single cell of honor left, he will admit he’s wrong, dismiss the case before being embarrassed in the Appeals Court and take his drubbing like a man. And then he’ll retire. June 1st is just days away. The clock is ticking. It’s time to give it up.