NRO: The Politicized Order Inviting Amicus Briefs against the Flynn Case’s Dismissal

Andrew McCarthy thinks it is nearly impossible for Judge Sullivan to avoid dismissing the case against Gen. Flynn. His core argument is compelling: The instant the prosecution and the defense agree on dismissal, the controversy before the court is resolved. The case itself evaporates.

Put another way, the judge has no power to compel the prosecution to continue litigating the matter. And, there being no controversy at issue, there is nothing to render judgement about.

12 thoughts on “NRO: The Politicized Order Inviting Amicus Briefs against the Flynn Case’s Dismissal

  1. What about his lies to the court?

    Lying may be a badge of honor for the current regime, but no so much in a US Federal Court.

    He pleaded guilty twice and innocent once to the same charges.

    Either he lied about his actions twice or once. I don’t think the judge considers that anything other than perjury if he did so under oath.

    The judge has not dismissed it yet. He is having an investigation done to find out some truth to the circus the defendant has put the court through.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “What about his lies to the court?”

      You keep saying that Flynn lied to the court, as though it were a true fact. But the real fact is that no such lies have been proved.

      If you think they have, I challenge you to quote the statement Flynn made to either investigators or to the court that has been proved a lie.

      You can’t, actually, because there is no lie involved in changing one’s plea from guilty to innocent (a point McCarthy addresses), and the 302 of the FBI’s interview of Flynn has not been made public.

      Your smear against the man is without merit.


      1. Smear? You’re like Don defending the indefensible.

        He pleaded guilty to lying about his contacts with Russian intelligence.

        If he didn’t do that, he lied to the court.

        He pleaded guilty again for the same crime.

        If he didn’t do that, he lied again.

        Then he pleaded not guilty.

        Well, which is it?

        He lied to the administration. He was lobbying for a foreign government illegally. He was planning to kidnap a man for money from Erdogan.

        And he was in line to be our top security advisor.

        Accuse me of smearing a lawbreaker like that? Try again.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Don’t confuse a court of law with a philosophical tribunal. There is no obligation for a defendant’s plea to be truthful in some existential sense, as you suggest.

          Your line of reasoning is actually a form of guilty-until-proven-innocent argument. Witch hunts are made of such things.


    2. So, it concerns you that Flynn effectively lied to the court by pleading guilty when he wasn’t, but you aren’t the least concerned that he was coerced to make that plea by threats of bankrupting his son.

      your selective outrage is disappointing.


      1. Give it a rest. Flynn lied to the FBI. He was lobbying for a foreign government illegally. He lied about that. He lied to Pence. He even was hatching a plan to kidnap a Turkish man living in the US to turn him over to Erdogan. With his son as a co -conspirator.

        You act like he was this patriot wronged by our government.

        Well, he wasn’t.

        And he was supposed to be the man who had access to our most sensitive secrets and the ear of the president.

        Your outrage is very puzzling.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “On November 10, The Wall Street Journal reported that Flynn was under investigation by Mueller for allegedly planning a kidnapping and extrajudicial rendition of Turkish cleric Fethullah Gülen to Turkey.[151][152] On November 22, NBC News reported that Michael T. Flynn’s business partner Bijan Kian was a subject of the Mueller probe.[153] NBC reported that a Turkish businessman named Reza Zarrab, who was picked up in 2016 by US authorities in Miami on Iranian sanctions violations and money laundering charges, was offering evidence against Flynn.[154][155] Flynn’s firm was paid more than $500,000 by Inovo for work which included investigating Gülen.”

            “ On March 24, 2017, former Director of the CIA James Woolsey said that in September 2016 Flynn, while working for the Trump presidential campaign, had attended a meeting in a New York hotel with Turkish officials including foreign minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and energy minister Berat Albayrak, son-in-law of Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and had discussed abducting Fethullah Gülen and sending him to Turkey, bypassing the U.S. extradition legal process.”


            This was not an innocent patriot. He was at best a loose cannon and at worst almost a traitor.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Your factual points mean nothing to those who have been drinking the Trump kool-aid since 2016.

            The idea that JTR put forth about …”no controversy at issue”… is blind loyalty to the regime. The judge has the duty to find out what this is all about. Not to mention the fact that the “notes” used to justify dropping the charges were twisted to fulfill the politicization BY the administration to try and save Flynn from himself. Those that wrote the notes have explained that IN DETAIL from the beginning of the sham by the Barr DOJ. The number of DOJ alumni siding against Barr is amazing in the grand scheme of things.

            Barr is attempting to pardon Flynn by withdrawing the charges because an actual presidential pardon would appear, on its face, to be extremely fishy.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. RE: “The judge has the duty to find out what this is all about.”

            I’d prefer a judge to uphold the law. It is the prosecution’s duty to show “what this is all about,” if it can. But of course, in this case the prosecution has decided to seek dismissal.


          4. “It is the prosecution’s duty to show “what this is all about,” if it can”

            So when the prosecution is corrupting justice, nothing gets done? They can just get away with it? In order for Judge Sullivan to PROPERLY uphold the law, he requires all of the facts. To just go along with a dismissal because the prosecution decided the notes said something they didn’t say would be a true miscarriage of justice.

            If there is nothing to hide, then let the truth come out. If in the end the Judge decides the withdrawal of charges is legit, then so be it. If he finds out the Barr DOJ twisted the facts in their proposal, then there should be hell to pay. And by Barr, not the flunkie who signed the paperwork.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s