The Justice Department defended its decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, arguing broadly that any scrutiny of its decision would wreak havoc on the department.
The way a wooden stake or the light of day “wreaks havoc“ on a vampire, I suppose.
"He added that the “spectacle” would end up impugning the motives of the Attorney General of the United States.”
Well, yeah.
…but is there a memo?
Farewell, Rule of Law, it was good while it lasted.
I, for one, love the fact that the lede has “Corrupt” appearing right along with “DOJ”.
Where it belongs…
Hahaha. The DOJ already performed an extraordinary “discovery” on behalf of the defense, but, omg, we must protect our deliberative process!
In other Farewell to the Rule of Law news, Trump and Pompeo are threatening to sanction the justices of the International Criminal Court for daring to investigate possible US war crimes In Afghanistan. We’re about to hit Rogue Regime Bingo.
This morning: Mexicans are responsible for all new COVID cases. Now this. Why don’t we just dispense with all the individual announcements and state the general rule? The Trump Administration cannot be held responsible for anything that goes wrong, or held accountable for anything whatsoever.
As soon as you file charges, it becomes the courts business. Fools.
Bush v. Gore reasoning
“But Your Honor, if ‘corrupt motives’ were disqualifying, then everything that AG Barr does would be invalid.”
“You’ll have a proceeding forcing us to explain ourselves,” Wall said.
Yes, indeed.
He added that the “spectacle” would end up “impugning the motives of the Attorney General of the United States.”
Yes, indeed.
Wall described the amicus brief of John Gleeson — the outside attorney Sullivan appointed to oppose the DOJ request to dismiss the case — as a “polemic” alleging “gross misconduct.”
But you don’t argue with it on the merits, do you?
The damage was already wreaked…by Barr.
It is a good point that if this was done in good faith that the judge would not have a problem going along with it. Say that an internal investigation found that a person’s confession was coerced, or that DNA evidence exonerated them between conviction and sentencing. In that case, the judicial system should sweep away the conviction and allow the defendant to go free, as it would be clear that the conviction was unjust. The prosecution would openly display the evidence, and go along with the obvious solution.
That is not happening here. There is no new evidence that Flynn didn’t lie to the FBI, or that he was coerced in any way into talking with them or lying to them. Nothing has changed to show he’s innocent…fever dream conspiracies of the president don’t change the facts. And, the DoJ is running over the rule of law by trying to do this for Trump and Flynn…the argument that the judicial system must respect the will of the DoJ runs counter to the judicial system being an equal branch of the government. It’s a totalitarian statement, where the executive position is respected in all cases, and any hones judge or lawyer must reject that for our justice system to remain just.
Now, we wait to see if the judges in this case are as corrupt as the Barr DoJ, the decision they render will make that clear.
Who owns the shredders?
Wall is basically admitting that there’s a case to be made that DoJ is corrupt.
Broadly, though, Wall focused on the idea that court proceedings were not the forum for handling allegations of corruption against the Justice Department in making prosecutorial decisions. That, he maintained, is a political question to be handled away from the courts.
It astounds me how many DoJ lawyers have prostrated themselves before Barr and Trump and defend their corruption.
Gotta admit, the DOJ has some balls. (I dearly hope that Sullivan will swiftly kick them therein, but the chutzpah is breathtaking…)
Then either there’s something lacking in the constitution or your argument.
https://twitter.com/emptywheel/status/1271447793434009602
Wall: Armstrong is clear you need clear evidence of improper motive to overcome presumption of regularity.
Rao: Only improper motive?
Wall: Only unconstitutional motive. If AG helping his friends, that’d be improper but not constitutional.
The idea that allegations of corruption against the DoJ should be handled politically, instead of by the judicial system is insane. It would give a wannabe fascist like Trump complete control over the levers of federal law enforcement, which is exactly what Barr has given to Trump. At great damage to the Institution and the rule of law.
The Trump Administration’s argument is they can basically run roughshod over any and all laws without accountability until voters decide in the next election. Oh, and they’ll do their level best to cheat and steal that election too, and no one should hold them accountable for that either.