Judge Sullivan rules that Flynn's false statements were material:
Judge Sullivan rejects the government's argument that he has no authority to review an unopposed Rule 48(a) motion:
Here is the standard he adopts:
He specifically writes that the Justice Department's logic appears "pretextual" and describes it as a "close question" whether the government's dismissal motion under Rule 48(a) should be granted:
Very sharp language on materiality on pp. 32-33
Judge Sullivan also attacks the government's contention that it could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Flynn's statements were false:
All that said, the question is moot in Judge Sullivan's view because of the pardon:
He grants the government's other motion to dismiss the case as moot in view of the pardon, noting carefully that this does not imply Flynn's innocence:
That's all I got.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Ok, it being 1:30 and @Klonick and my not having a guest yet for @inlieuoffunshow, I declare it a #GuestsGoneWild day. In my next tweet, I will tag some key members of the audience. They will respond with some prior guests they would like the bring back.
The first bagged guest will name some other guest he or she wants to talk to. And we'll see what happens. Here we go....
First, I floated this idea some time back, before the election, because Garland struck me as precisely the type of person Biden should want running the Justice Department. He has unusually deep experience the the department.
He is also, critically, as close as we have in this day and age to a figure who is actually above politics. Despite what Mitch McConnell did wth his nomination, he the subject of pretty universal admiration among his colleagues on the D.C. Circuit.
There was actually a little more to the dream than this. At one point, a prominent lawyer walks into the court, recognizes me, and begins congratulating me about @lawfareblog. This stresses me out further because while it is good for my case before the judge, I have no idea...
...who this person is and I'm clearly supposed to know him.
Also, the judge mysteriously changes gender and race. As a judge, he is African American and male. As a dental hygienist, she is white and female and I am trying to make my case to her before sitting in the chair.
Wow, this puts it as well and as succinctly as I've ever seen it put. Gonna remember the words: "I feel anxious for civic virtue in an era of mis- and disinformation." They capture a lot.
This is a very good point from @steve_vladeck. The appointment itself does not comply with the regs. If Barr can appoint someone pursuant to his general statutory appointment authority and apply the regs, it is very likely that the next attorney general can rescind the order.
That is, if the appointment is not bound by the regs, presumably rescinding the appointment is not either—and thus does not require good cause. If, by contrast, the appointment *is* bound by the regs, it violates them and thus can be rescinded as unlawful.
I think.
Ok, having looked at this a little more carefully now, here's a first read: (1) The appointment is not made pursuant to the special counsel regulations but to Barr's general statutory authorities as attorney general:
A Thanksgiving story to warm your pluralistic hearts:
It was the early 1990s, the days before Washington DC had meters in taxis. A famine was raging in Somalia. And I was working in my first job out of college: a brief stint working for an organization that focused on the Middle East peace process.
I was heading to my parents’ house. I was standing in front of a mailbox near my office. I was holding a stack of papers with Hebrew writing on them. I hailed a cab.