Reading it now, it looks like a real brief. Asserts the power of the Executive. Cites Fokker. Claims error on part of the Counsel for Judge Sullivan.
I’d say that this round goes to the Solicitor General.
The Constitution vests in the Executive Branch the power to decide when—and when not—to prosecute potential crimes. Exercising that Article II power here, the Executive filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, and petitioner consented. Despite that exercise of prosecutorial discretion, and the lack of any remaining Article III controversy between the parties, the district court failed to grant the motion and bring the case to a close. It instead appointed an amicus curiae to argue against dismissal and to consider additional criminal charges.
How does this argument compare with the first paragraph of the Sullivan brief? It looks to me like the the Government brought the Constitution to the fight and the Sullivan Counsels brought a demand that career prosecutors should always prevail over their appointed DOJ superiors.
wow! compared to the ridiculous gobbledygook submitted by Sullivan, DoJ has presented an amazingly well-founded argument in a very clear fashion ...