Cutting to the chase and you made a logical argument and I thank you for it - it is solid, we are left with the Comey and Mueller standards and that is outside the law.
Comey - “she (HRC) really screwed up but nobody will prosecute it”. That was not his role and the DOJ does not publicly excoriate people under investigations when they choose not to pursue charges - the FBI should NEVER publicly make any recommendation nor does the director have authority to do so.
Mueller - “we did not find any collusion by Trump or others, but we cannot exonerate him either.” A farce on its face - you either found it or the person is presumed innocent.
Judge Sullivan - “I think it was perjury, but since higher courts have said it is not, nor can it be, I am forced to grant the motion to dismiss.” This is legal reasoning with no foundation in law, precedent, or the facts of the case.
What did these three things have in common? No foundation to do what they did, yet they did it anyways because “Orange Man Bad.” These are all prime examples of the type of judicial activism that is destroying the rule of law in our nation. It existed in the FBI and DOJ. It existed throughout the special counsel investigation. Once again, as many decisions tied to Trump by district court judges, it now rears its ugly head again at a district court.
I have a different desire for the Flynn matter. I think US Atty Jensen should appear personally before Judge Sullivan and lay out his motion to dismiss verbally before the bench because Judge Sullivan is NOT addressing the motion to dismiss on the merits.
Judge Sullivan is NOT addressing the malfeasance documented in the motion to dismiss by DOJ. Instead, he is looking strictly at the case as it occurred at the podium in his courtroom. Is there a precedent for this? A judge is supposed to view the entire case from start to finish far beyond the courtroom. Do all facts of the case matter before a court?
Response: The DOJ’s description of FBI actions in the Flynn motion to dismiss looks bad to Flynn supporters, but does not describe anything done by the FBI or prior prosecutors as misconduct.
At the end of Judge Sullivan’s 12/16/19 Order denying Flynn some discovery and dismissal, he wrote:
“This case is not United States v. Theodore F. Stevens, Criminal Action No. 08–231(EGS), the case that Mr. Flynn relies on throughout his briefing. In that case, the Court granted the government’s motion to dismiss, and the government admitted that it had committed Brady violations and made misrepresentations to the Court. In re Special Proceedings, 825 F. Supp. 2d 203, 204 (D.D.C. 2011).”
By comparison — Flynn agreed to withdraw his “motion to dismiss case for egregious government misconduct” in exchange for the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. The DOJ moved to dismiss the Flynn prosecution without admitting to misconduct and only after getting Flynn to withdraw the motion that would have allowed Judge Sullivan to decide if there was misconduct.