In Like Flynn
Last summer in June, Bill Barr asked Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn. It was so outrageous that 2,300 current and former members of the Justice Department expressed anger and disapprove of Barr’s request. So, instead, Judge Sullivan hired a special prosecutor for the case.
That brings us to today.
The Justice Department, ironically named in this damn mess – has filed a motion yesterday in Judge Sullivan’s court to dismiss the case against Flynn because he got pardon.
It was the first time the public has seen the entire pardon.
In a three-page filing accompanying the pardon, the Justice Department emphasized to Judge Sullivan that the language covered “any possible future perjury or contempt charge in connection with General Flynn’s sworn statements and any other possible future charge” that the judge or Mr. Gleeson “has suggested might somehow keep this criminal case alive over the government’s objection.”
Michael Flynn committed an unspeakable act against the United States of America. And then he lied about it to the FBI.
At the very least the prosecutors files, the same ones seen by Judge Sullivan, should be opened to the pubic for us to decided exactly what Flynn did. I fear that it’s worse than we know.
And yes, this does mean that if called to testify against any member of Trump’s administration or Trump himself, Flynn cannot plead the Fifth. However, given his record on telling the truth, I doubt his testimony will carry much weight.
Thanks to Kary for the heads up.
I love Judge Sullivan.
1… and now we know why Rudy has been going all-out, bat-quano crazy for Trump:
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/12/01/us/joe-biden-trump
The article says Giuliani talked with Trump about a pardon for himself before Trump leaves. So (a) Giuliani probably does not believe any of the stolen election tripe, and (b) has some major criminal exposure that we don’t know about.
Of course “both sides do it”. Remember the flurry of pardons that Obama had to dole out to all of his staff and family in December 2016? Yeah, me neither.
2The pardon is for future actions, too??!!??
Well, no need for him to tell the truth in court, ever–he’s already been pardoned for any perjury he does.
I did not think that pardons could be allowed to include future actions.
It is hard not to wish a lightning strike to take out Trump and his minions, right now, before more damage is done.
3Sounds to me like f**king trump is signaling to ANYONE who might testify against him at a later date to save themselves.
4The sooner the better (for him). Time’s running out.
Quote from Giuliani- “I despise crooked lawyers” as he denied asking for a pardon and was wiping the brown liquid brain matter leaking from his head off his cheeks.
5As for Flynn, I hope judge Sullivan does release details of Flynn’s deeds. I also can’t wait to see him squirm when forced to give testimony on what he knows about the corrupt Trumpf crime family. Imagine all the Trumpfs will be squirming too.
Star says:
The pardon is for future actions, too??!!??
Good question and detail from the filing Star & JJ.
6If it’s anticipated a pardon for future actions is required, that doesn’t say much about the credibility or character of the pardon giver, or the one who receives the pardon. That’s old news of course, but Trump & Flynn chose to put it in writing.
Steve: So if someone says “That s**t for brains scoundrel,” we all now know exactly what it looks like…right? Giuliani’s unintended problem with cheap dye revealing inner truth.
Sad. Very sad thing, when the brains turn brown.
7Seems to me that just like we’re not supposed to be dealing with ex post facto laws & judgments, it’s only fair not to have ex post facto pardons…that you can only be pardoned for what you’ve already done, not for everything you might, in future, do.
If, for instance, an irate husband kills an unfaithful wife and later the governor of the state pardons him…that can’t possibly be interpreted as the husband’s right to kill his next wife for her affair with the pool boy…can it?
8Star @3
I’m not an attorney, so I went hunting for someone with more experience: “emptywheel” has a fine reputation for close analysis of texts and how they fit with other texts in a situation. The statement from her site is the pardon covers:
The false statements as charged under the criminal information filed in the docket
All possible offenses arising from the facts set forth in that and the Statement of Offense
All offenses that might arise from the proceedings under that docket number
All offenses under the investigative authority of Robert Mueller
All charges identified under Mueller’s authority, including anything identified by the grand juries in DC or Virginia
I’m uncertain what else Flynn may have done to justify criminal charges. I am encouraged by emptywheel’s comment:
“It is a breathtaking attempt to invalidate the work of Robert Mueller and Flynn’s subsequent lies to get out out of his legal jeopardy. This kind of pardon might work for others.
“But it does not, in fact, go far enough. It would be child’s play to charge and convict Mike Flynn without violating the scope of this pardon, even if it were to stand as written.
“I’ll explain how on January 21.”
9Not a lawyer but I have to agree — it’s a pardon, not a “get out of jail free” card to be held until needed. I don’t believe pardons are supposed to give you permission to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in the future.
10The pardon seems to be for any possible charges arising from Flynn’s past actions. If he is hauled in to testify on January 21, 2021, and lies, he’d be up for perjury.
It would be fun to get all Flynn’s crimes on record. Might be useful at some point.
11I’ve been wondering these past years, is Flynn still entitled
12to his military pension?
Would Treason cancel his pension or is this why he is fighting hard to be pardoned and would a pardon wipe his slate clean?
More wondering: is he paying large attorney fees or do other treasonous folks pitch in.
I hate grifters.
Buttermilk Sky says:
I don’t believe pardons are supposed to give you permission to shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in the future.
The philosophical conundrums of time travel used to involve questions like “if you could go back in time, would you kill Hitler?”
13Now, in the Trump era it’s become “would you turn known criminals loose on people of the future?”
Star, I think you are reading too much into ‘future,’ this refers to as-yet uninitiated attempts to charge Flynn for past acts, not a pass on future acts.
I’d enthusiastically advise calling him before a House committee and asking him the same questions that the prosecutors asked the court to consider: he either admits to the offenses he was pardoned for or he lies to Congress and can be prosecuted for that.
However, the Supreme Court did refuse to allow that sort of inquiry into allegedly disloyal Americans in the ’50s, so the ploy would have to be carefully crafted. (The thinking was that it is improper to present a question whose answer, either way, exposes a person to sanction. You could get around that by saying, with the butter congealed in your mouth, that you assume he was veracious before. You would also need a legitimate legislative purpose to seek the testimony but I think that could easily be done; for example, you could be investigating how to deal with the problem of foreign governments using cutouts to shield their US agents from the registration act. In fact, concerning Flynn and Turkey, that ought to be a genuine issue.)
14My bet is that Flynn, despite pardon, will never ever be out of the woods the rest of his life. Ditto for certain others that are still hiding under their desks in the White House.
15