Hi @JonathanTurley , your post is built on a series of obtuse misreadings of the oped. Your main claim is that I suggest Sullivan should ignore the merits of the motion and make trouble gratuitously. On the contrary, it's precisely the merits that are so assailable
and that I suggest he focus on. The DOJ has advanced a series of factual and legal arguments that don't withstand scrutiny, as so many people have pointed out. Sullivan needn't attack the concept of prosecutorial discretion in order to reject those claims. Nothing about the
discretion supplied in Rule 48 insulates the DOJ from advancing factually and legally flawed arguments. It's a serious mischaracterization of that legal argument to say, as you repeatedly do, that the oped advocates departing from the law or, worse, that it acknowledges
that Sullivan "has no real choice but to grant the motion." 2) You again grossly distort the oped to suggest that an evidentiary hearing would be "for a purpose other than the merits of the legal question before the Court." on the contrary, it would be precisely to test the
merits of the DOJ's arguments that Flynn's admitted lies weren't material or that the interview with the FBI wasn't predicated, a point that I haven't heard anyone but you adopt. Your position is especially poorly taken since in the same breath you argue that the oped
fails to take account of the DOJ's (extremely tenuous) evidentiary claims of possible false statements. These are among the claims that Sullivan is more than justified given the DOJ's reversal in examining/ 3. you take me to task for not mentioning the "highly controversial"
notion of third party arguments in a criminal case. The controversy is essentially invented by you, and your tweet about it is citation-free. there are many instances, inc Rule 42, where the courts use amici in a criminal case. But the bigger point here is the Department's
position means there is no one available to argue the other side. In that setting, courts from the Supreme Court down will appoint somebody to do it. 4. Finally, you assail the oped for taking the impropriety of the DOJ as "established and beyond question." It does; but that
is only because I, along with so many other scholars -- you are a very lonely voice in the wilderness here -- have previously written about that and this oped served a separate purpose. Sorry to say but your posting is built on a scaffolding of mischaracterizations. Best, Harry
