Justice Department is seeking to dismiss case against Michael Flynn

[WuWei]

@NickN

@WuWei

Sullivan has done nothing to be impeached for.

What about mal-administration?

Sullivan in such an high office is going against both the prosecution and defendants wishes here.

As such, public trust and employment might be impeachment material?

Toward end of 1700’s, the 1st and principal high misdemeanor acquired this more technical meaning.

No. Flynn’s plea complicated things, as did the FBI actions. Nobody is going to fault a judge for taking a week or two to sort this out. Sullivan has an excuse for at least another week.

Flynn is awaiting sentencing, not trial. Is he in jail?

[NickN]

@WuWei

No. Flynn’s plea complicated things, as did the FBI actions. Nobody is going to fault a judge for taking a week or two to sort this out. Sullivan has an excuse for at least another week.

Flynn is awaiting sentencing, not trial. Is he in jail?

Yes agree Sullivan has time built into the equation.

However, we will see if he conforms to what is lawful here or not.

If not, then impeachment might be on the table if Trump re-elected and Congress changes control…

[WuWei]

@NickN

However, we will see if he conforms to what is lawful here or not.

Sentencing Flynn would not be unlawful. It is a crime and Flynn did plea guilty.

[Ben_Natuf]

i seem to remember in history a case where they removed one. perhaps not

[NickN]

@WuWei

Sentencing Flynn would not be unlawful. It is a crime and Flynn did plea guilty.

The legal issue is more about there does not appear to be any existing law empowering Sullivan to sentence. The conventional wisdom is dismissing the case with commentary.

[Ben_Natuf]

binding precedent in the dc circuit is fairly clear. if the government wants to dismiss, even in cases with plea agreements, the courts responsibility is ministerial.

[Zander]

@Ben_Natuf

binding precedent in the dc circuit is fairly clear. if the government wants to dismiss, even in cases with plea agreements, the courts responsibility is ministerial.

Can you please cite this case or cases? Thanks.

[WuWei]

@NickN

@WuWei

Sentencing Flynn would not be unlawful. It is a crime and Flynn did plea guilty.

The legal issue is more about there does not appear to be any existing law empowering Sullivan to sentence. The conventional wisdom is dismissing the case with commentary.

There is no legal issue. It is a law and Flynn pled guilty. What do you think is the legal issue?

[WuWei]

@Ben_Natuf

binding precedent in the dc circuit is fairly clear. if the government wants to dismiss, even in cases with plea agreements, the courts responsibility is ministerial.

How is it “binding”?

[NickN]

@WuWei

There is no legal issue. It is a law and Flynn pled guilty. What do you think is the legal issue?

There is no legal issue with the judge right now. So long as he does not attempt to impose sentencing on Flynn. In the end analysis, this judge probably can’t really require a prosecutor to pursue a case that he maintains isn’t legally justifiable.

I also imagine some wrongdoing with improper and undue influence on Flynn can lead to additional legal issues for at least a part of the Mueller team.

[WuWei]

@NickN

@WuWei

There is no legal issue. It is a law and Flynn pled guilty. What do you think is the legal issue?

There is no legal issue with the judge right now. So long as he does not attempt to impose sentencing on Flynn. In the end analysis, this judge probably can’t really require a prosecutor to pursue a case that he maintains isn’t legally justifiable.

I also imagine some wrongdoing with improper and undue influence on Flynn can lead to additional legal issues for at least a part of the Mueller team.

The case was already pursued. Flynn pled guilty. What do you think the issue is going to be if he sentences Flynn?

[Ben_Natuf]

@Zander

Can you please cite this case or cases? Thanks.

there are several, a few in here

https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-department-wants-drop-flynns-case-can-judge-say-no

[Ben_Natuf]

lower courts are bound by the precedents of higher courts. he can do whatever he wants, but when it gets to appeal they’ll slap him silly.

[WuWei]

@Ben_Natuf

lower courts are bound by the precedents of higher courts. he can do whatever he wants, but when it gets to appeal they’ll slap him silly.

What higher court precedence are you citing?

[Ben_Natuf]

there are several in the link i provided.

[WuWei]

@Ben_Natuf

there are several in the link i provided.

Might want to read it again.

Flynn has already had his day in court. He pled guilty.

[NickN]

@WuWei

The case was already pursued. Flynn pled guilty. What do you think the issue is going to be if he sentences Flynn?

In Sullivan’s mind there was probably both injustice before and right now too. For as much as he is a Never Trumper, likely finds a middling ground. All indications are Sullivan is smart and fair enough. Someone else likely signs off on the Flynn dismissal is my guess.

If so, you are correct that impeachment for Judge Sullivan is off the table.

[Smyrna]

The judge has no say in this matter. NONE. He judges what’s presented…period. If the charges are dropped, he’s done. This whole thing is nothing more than the revealing of the swamp and he’s a creature.

[NickN]

Any judge has say to dismiss without prejudice. This results in that the case is merely closed.

If on the other hand a case was dismissed with prejudice, it could be appealed to a higher judge, but you can’t start over from scratch and try again.

[Ben_Natuf]

you might want to read it again. it covers plea agreements