Replies

As a matter of settled federal law, charging and dismissal decisions are considered the exclusive domain of the Department of Justice. That ordinarily puts such decisions and the reasons and deliberations behind them beyond judicial inquiry. Indeed, since the government and the defendant both agree on the dismissal, it can be said that there is no longer a case or controversy for the trial judge to adjudicate.

Rockingham, it sounds like you're a lawyer as well.

If what Cboldt says is the case - that the lying case is over and they're fighting about the contempt charge, which is a charge brought by the Judiciary Branch not the Executive Branch - there would be no separation of powers issue. The DC Court of Appeals would thus not be bound by its recent decision in Fokker. I have not read the pleadings, but cboldt seems to be up to speed on this. In any event, the Dims are likely going to achieve their goal of muzzling Flynn until after the election.

Yeah, this case is all about the limit of the court’s power, and how the court should assess and respond to an unopposed motion to dismiss the criminal charge. The criminal charge is gone so the separation of power’s issue is, IMO, a phantom anyway. The rights being impinged are Flynn’s, and the court is doing all the damage, all by itself.

I think the public is mostly ignorant that Sullivan is holding Flynn while he (Sullivan) ponders taking on the role of prosecutor against Flynn.

I think the public doesn’t really appreciate that the DC Circuit thinks maybe this is okay. maybe a Court should have the power to hold a defendant in suspense for months after the government has decided to dismiss the charges - indeed, aft the government has demonstrated to the trial court, that no crime was committed. This isn’t a question of sufficiency of evidence, this case collapses because there is no victim. No harm. None.

Except the supposedly impartial and justice driven court system thinks maybe this fellow ought to held in criminal contempt. Not that he is, just that this is a reasonable inquiry to make under the circumstances, and its okay to let Flynn hold in suspense while the Court plays rhetorical footsie.

These people are sick puppies. Our judges are dangerous to liberty, and Congress thinks this is hunky dory. That’s what it is, and to be honest, there is nothing the public can do other than “get the picture,” and understand that the court is a bunch of hacks, legitimate only on its own say so, not because it is wise, or just. It is a contemptible institution. It’s fooling some people, maybe most - but not all, not all.

Perhaps, but in spite of Judge Sullivan's comment, he has not initiated a contempt charge against Flynn, and if he did, he would risk compromising his judicial role by becoming a prosecutor. Moreover, the fatuity of any such contempt charge is easily demonstrated because it assumes that Flynn was innocent but lied about his guilt in order to get the benefit of a plea bargain.

In a contempt charge on those grounds, Judge Sullivan would have to aim to punish an innocent man whom the prosecution induced to falsely plead guilty. Yet courts have long prioritized getting to the truth of guilt or innocence instead of trying to penalize a defendant for a false guilty plea.

Indeed, prosecutors often come in for sharp criticism when they threaten a defendant or witnesses with perjury charges in order to maintain a questionable guilty plea or verdict. It is hard to see how a judge can engage in such conduct without correction by the appellate courts or suffering judicial misconduct charges.