ALL TRUMP!!! ALL THE TIME!!!

The Department of Justice on Thursday told U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington it wants to drop the case against Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, following a pressure campaign by the Republican president and his political allies.

While judges typically sign off on such motions, Sullivan could refuse and instead demand answers from the DOJ about who requested the sudden about-face, said Seth Waxman, a former federal prosecutor now at the law firm Dickinson Wright.

“If Judge Sullivan wanted to he could conduct an inquiry and start asking a lot of questions,” said Waxman.

....

The Justice Department said in a court filing on Thursday it is no longer persuaded that the FBI’s January 2017 interview with Flynn that led to the charges was conducted with a “legitimate investigative basis” and does not think Flynn’s statements were “material even if untrue.”

While the judge still has to rule on the submission, elated supporters of Flynn said there was no way Sullivan could force the department to prosecute if it did not want to. But the judge could stop Flynn from withdrawing his guilty plea and impose sentence. In that case, Trump could pardon Flynn.

The judge is unlikely to sign off on the request as a pro forma matter, said Channing Phillips, the former acting U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia during the Obama administration, adding that with Sullivan “nothing is pro forma.”

“I can guarantee you, he is going to question the prosecutors,” Phillips said in a phone interview. “He is going to want to understand exactly the basis for this motion ... You have a new attorney general. You have a new U.S. attorney. You have new prosecutors who take a different position. But the facts haven’t changed.”

Sullivan, 72, was appointed to the federal bench in 1994 by former Democratic President Bill Clinton and is known for an independent streak, often delivering strong rebukes of conduct he views as unjust.

There had to be a legitimate investigative purpose for the interview. If the primary purpose of the interview was to set up a perjury trap instead of obtaining evidence pertaining to the investigation (which unsealed documents show was a clear possibility) then the perjury is inadmissible. I suppose it's similar to how evidence obtained by illegal searches is inadmissible.

Either way, it's a huge gray area that actual lawyers and judges will have to work out instead of armchair internet lawyers. This never would have happened if the investigators (and yes, Flynn too) had some actual integrity, though.

Judge could stop Trump DOJ from dropping case


Legal pundits are already weigning in, sharing the opinion that the Judge isn't likely to just dismiss the case. Flynn is guilty, he entered a guilty plea, the judge accepted it, he stands convicted and is awaiting sentencing. The Trump DOJ's opinion really doesn't matter, they were just there to give a sentencing recommendation which the Judge can completely ignore.

So everyone ready for the insane screaming when Flynn walks out this week?

The United States of America hereby moves to dismiss with prejudice the criminal
information filed against Michael T. Flynn pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
48(a). The Government has determined, pursuant to the Principles of Federal Prosecution and
based on an extensive review and careful consideration of the circumstances, that continued
prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice.

Mr. Flynn entered a guilty plea—which he has since sought to withdraw—to a single
count of making false statements in a January 24, 2017 interview with investigators of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). See ECF Nos. 3-4. This crime, however, requires a
statement to be not simply false, but “materially” false with respect to a matter under
investigation. 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Materiality is an essential element of the offense.
Materiality, moreover, requires more than mere “relevance” or relatedness to the matter being
investigated; it requires “probative weight,” whereby the statement is “reasonably likely to
influence the tribunal in making a determination required to be made.” United States v.
Weinstock, 231 F.2d 699, 701 (D.C. Cir. 1956) (emphasis added).

After a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly
discovered and disclosed information appended to the defendant’s supplemental pleadings, ECF
Nos. 181, 188-190,1 the Government has concluded that the interview of Mr. Flynn was
untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn—a
no longer justifiably predicated investigation that the FBI had, in the Bureau’s own words,
prepared to close because it had yielded an “absence of any derogatory information.” Ex. 1 at 4,
FBI FD-1057 “Closing Communication” Jan. 4, 2017 (emphases added). The Government is not
persuaded that the January 24, 2017 interview was conducted with a legitimate investigative
basis and therefore does not believe Mr. Flynn’s statements were material even if untrue.
Moreover, we not believe that the Government can prove either the relevant false statements or
their materiality beyond a reasonable doubt.

A former Justice Department official says Attorney General William Barr "twisted" her words to justify the decision to drop the criminal case against former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

Mary B. McCord, former acting assistant attorney general for national security, wrote in a New York Times op-ed Sunday that Barr cherry-picked from her 2017 testimony to special counsel Robert Mueller, which the DOJ cited more than 25 times in the motion to dismiss Flynn's case. She said her testimony is "no support for Mr. Barr's dismissal of the Flynn case."

"It does not suggest that the F.B.I. had no counterintelligence reason for investigating Mr. Flynn," she wrote. "It does not suggest that the F.B.I.'s interview of Mr. Flynn — which led to the false-statements charge — was unlawful or unjustified. It does not support that Mr. Flynn's false statements were not material."

McCord continued, "And it does not support the Justice Department's assertion that the continued prosecution of the case against Mr. Flynn, who pleaded guilty to knowingly making material false statements to the FBI, 'would not serve the interests of justice.'" ...