Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, May 19, 2020

Some commentators have questioned whether Judge Sullivan has the authority to deny the government's motion. (I)n late 1944, ... the Supreme Court adopted Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48: "The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint" (emphasis added). As Thomas Frampton recently explained in the most thorough scholarly treatment of the rule's history to date, Rule 48's principal object was not to protect "individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants."

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Rule 48(a) Requires Judges to Reject a Dismissal that Is Not "in the Public Interest"

In other words, Frampton writes, Rule 48 "was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn."

Our conclusion is clear: Judge Sullivan does not merely have the authority to review the Department's motion to dismiss. As courts have described it, he has a "duty" to ensure that the dismissal is in "the public interest" and is not "tainted by impropriety" or "bad faith." And if, after careful review, he finds that the motion is in fact tainted, his duty is equally clear: He must deny it.

Seems fairly clear-cut. Just not seeing how Barr plans on winning this dispute if Rule 48 is as it's being presented here.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-19 11:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at

What made Barr think the judge would just roll over on this?

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2020-05-19 11:26 AM | Reply

Subsequently,the Supreme Court inserted the phrase "by leave of court" when it issued the final version of Rule 48. As one of the leading decisions interpreting Rule 48 observes, this drafting history makes it "manifestly clear that the Supreme Court intended to clothe the federal courts with a discretion broad enough to protect the public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice."
Unfortunately, even if Sullivan exercises his Rule 48 authority we can count on the five Republican operatives sitting on SCOTUS to neuter that authority.

And even if they didn't (a very big if), Trump can and will pardon Flynn regardless. Barr's dismissal scheme is merely an attempt to shield Trump from the slight political damage that stems from pardoning a traitor, and 99.9% of Trump supporters couldn't care less about such a thing.

#3 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-19 11:37 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

What made Barr think the judge would just roll over on this?

The right wing rage machine, that's what. Joe says it above, but I already said it when the DOJ changed horses in mid-stream. Barr was trying to keep Trump from issuing a pardon and he was setting the stage for Obamagate - that the Obama Administration was behind prosecuting Flynn purely for political motives, as they were with the entire Russia investigations.

Barr's ultimate goal is to reverse engineer criminal conduct on the part of the investigators for even investigating the evidence of wrongdoing by Trumpers.

Personally, I don't see any wiggle room in Rule 48 that would give Roberts shelter for going along with revisionist adjudication, but I don't see it getting that far. Trump will claim the judge is partisanly biased against Flynn and pardon him. If Sullivan is allowed to hold hearings the totality of Flynn's illicit activities and connections to Russia and Turkey will become common knowledge and will eviscerate any notions that he's a victim of malicious prosecution motivated by politics.

#4 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-19 12:00 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Perhaps Barr is simply playing Trump. He did what Trump asked him to do, knowing that the judge would not allow it to happen, so justice will be served. That way, Barr saves face and puts it back in Trump's court, where it should have stayed. If Trump wants Flynn to go free, he should pardon him. Trump's just trying to have his cake and eat it too, that is he's trying to avoid the political blow-back.

OCU

#5 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-05-19 12:01 PM | Reply

The best part is a mob prosecutor will give a report on why Flynn is guilty and blow up Obamagate.

We already knew that Trump will let all his mob minions go free.

#6 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-19 12:21 PM | Reply

When Flynn plead guilty, he also agreed not to file a motion to withdraw his plea.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-05-19 06:35 PM | Reply

When Flynn plead guilty, he also agreed not to file a motion to withdraw his plea.

#7 | Posted by Sycophant

Which could be the basis for holding him in contempt.

OCU

#8 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-05-19 06:46 PM | Reply

And even if they didn't (a very big if), Trump can and will pardon Flynn regardless. Barr's dismissal scheme is merely an attempt to shield Trump from the slight political damage that stems from pardoning a traitor, and 99.9% of Trump supporters couldn't care less about such a thing.

#3 | Posted by JOE at 2020-05-19 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

That's likely why the DOJ didn't go after Flynn for the worst of his transgressions. He can still be charged with those by the Biden DOJ.

#9 | Posted by _Gunslinger_ at 2020-05-19 08:43 PM | Reply

Today's filing criticizes Judge Sullivan for his statements made from the bench about his opinion of Michael Flynn's conduct, saying that it shows he's not impartial.

Soooooooooo, Flynn's attorneys are trying - at minimum - to have the case removed from Sullivan's court because of statements that Sullivan made based on the evidentiary record and Flynn's own elocutions after he had already plead under oath TWICE - to two separate judges - that he was indeed guilty of the charge he plead to, or to have the appellate court act as though Rule 48(a) doesn't give Sullivan the power it was written to provide judges with - to "do justice" when prosecutors try to game the system as this case certainly appears to do.

Aren't judges allowed to have feelings that coincide with both the prosecution's charges AND the defendant's confession of guilt to those same charges? In what world is this preconceived bias. It's called believing that sworn testimony and an elocution of guilt actually reflects the truth from the defendant's point of view, first and foremost - as if a judge has never admonished a guilty suspect from the bench after a verdict or plea has already been rendered.

Only in cuckoo land.

#10 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-19 08:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

He can still be charged with those by the Biden DOJ.

If Trump is almost certainly going to pardon Flynn he will pardon him for all federal offenses Flynn might have committed before the issuance of the pardon.

Unless Flynn has also broken state law in Virginia, a pardon will be a complete Get Out of Jail Free card.

Perhaps Pennsylvania might nab him for conspiracy to kidnap the cleric, but I don't know if there's a state charge or just federal ones.

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-19 08:58 PM | Reply

TONY

Trump has stated that he'd like to hire Flynn back. Would a Federal pardon allow him to do that even with State prosecutions already in the pipeline.

#12 | Posted by Twinpac at 2020-05-19 09:19 PM | Reply

Only in cuckoo land.

#10 | Posted by tonyroma

The correct reference is "Cloud Cuckoo Land".

OCU

#13 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-05-19 09:55 PM | Reply

#12

Flynn couldn't get a high security clearance with a felony conviction for lying to the FBI about a material national security concern on his record. Now, if the charges are "dropped" Trump could make the argument that Flynn was innocent as he overrules the clearance process just like he did for Jared.

I would imagine career folks who would have to work with Flynn in NatSec might be incensed, but when has that ever stopped Trump from doing whatever he wants?

#14 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-05-19 10:01 PM | Reply

On May 12 Grassley asked to see the Flynn transcripts. He wants full transparency...

#15 | Posted by bored at 2020-05-19 10:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now Sully could haul Flynn and his Lawyer into court today. Except the Guilty plea, find Flynn and his lawyer in contempte of court give Flynn 5 years for the initial charge, and the contempt charge will stay in effect until he admits his guilt and the lawyer tells the court she is sorry for being such a pain in the back side. Of course they would both be taken to jail, with no bail. Now even if Flynn is freed on appeal he will spend a good amount of time in jail pending that appeal. If Trump pardons him, he is still in jail until the Judge lifts the contempt citation. If he admits his guilt, then even if pardoned, he would lose his military retirement pay based on being convicted of a felony and admitting to the act, but only free based on a Pardon. Lawyer will end up being dis barred due to the nature of the contempt citation and the ABA will not want the Judges to think they do not support them. See how easy that is.

#16 | Posted by LittleJake at 2020-05-20 08:49 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort