This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/us/politics/michael-flynn-appeals-court.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Appeals Court Panel Orders End to Michael Flynn Case Appeals Court Panel Orders End to Michael Flynn Case
(about 2 hours later)
WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court panel ordered an immediate end on Wednesday to the case against Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser — delivering a major victory to Mr. Flynn and to the Justice Department, which had sought to drop the case.WASHINGTON — A divided federal appeals court panel ordered an immediate end on Wednesday to the case against Michael T. Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser — delivering a major victory to Mr. Flynn and to the Justice Department, which had sought to drop the case.
In the ruling, two of three judges on a panel for the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ordered the trial judge overseeing the matter, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, to immediately dismiss the case without further review. The third accused his colleagues of “grievously” overstepping their powers, and the full appeals court has the option of reviewing the matter. In the ruling, two of three judges on a panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the trial judge overseeing the matter, Emmet G. Sullivan, to immediately dismiss the case without further review. The third accused his colleagues of “grievously” overstepping their powers.
The order — a so-called writ of mandamus — was rare and came as a surprise, taking its place as yet another twist in the extraordinary legal and political drama surrounding the prosecution of Mr. Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to F.B.I. agents in the Russia investigation about his conversations in December 2016 with the Russian ambassador to the United States. But the full appeals court has the option of reviewing the matter, and Judge Sullivan did not immediately dismiss the case in response to the ruling. Instead, he suspended deadlines for further briefs and a July 16 hearing in his review, suggesting he was studying his options or waiting to see what the broader group of judges might do.
The order from the panel — a so-called writ of mandamus — was rare and came as a surprise, taking its place as yet another twist in the extraordinary legal and political drama surrounding the prosecution of Mr. Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to F.B.I. agents in the Russia investigation about his conversations in December 2016 with the Russian ambassador to the United States.
Mr. Flynn’s case became a political cause for Mr. Trump and his supporters, who have sought to discredit the broader inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and links to the Trump campaign. Earlier this year, Mr. Flynn sought to withdraw his guilty plea, and Attorney General William P. Barr directed prosecutors last month to ask Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case.Mr. Flynn’s case became a political cause for Mr. Trump and his supporters, who have sought to discredit the broader inquiry into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and links to the Trump campaign. Earlier this year, Mr. Flynn sought to withdraw his guilty plea, and Attorney General William P. Barr directed prosecutors last month to ask Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case.
But before ruling on that request, Judge Sullivan appointed a former judge to critique the government’s motion. Mr. Flynn’s defense lawyer, Sidney Powell, then asked the federal appeals court to order Judge Sullivan to shut down that review and terminate the matter.But before ruling on that request, Judge Sullivan appointed a former judge to critique the government’s motion. Mr. Flynn’s defense lawyer, Sidney Powell, then asked the federal appeals court to order Judge Sullivan to shut down that review and terminate the matter.
Widely seen as a long shot by many legal experts, her strategy succeeded — at least for now.Widely seen as a long shot by many legal experts, her strategy succeeded — at least for now.
The case is “about whether, after the government has explained why a prosecution is no longer in the public interest, the district judge may prolong the prosecution by appointing an amicus, encouraging public participation, and probing the government’s motives,” wrote Judge Neomi Rao, a former White House official whom Mr. Trump appointed to the appeals court last year. The case is “about whether, after the government has explained why a prosecution is no longer in the public interest, the district judge may prolong the prosecution by appointing an amicus, encouraging public participation and probing the government’s motives,” wrote Judge Neomi Rao, a former White House official whom Mr. Trump appointed to the appeals court last year.
She added: “On that, both the Constitution and cases are clear: He may not.” She added, “On that, both the Constitution and cases are clear: He may not.”
Judge Sullivan, who has a lawyer representing him in the appeals court, could ask the full appeals court to reverse the order. The full court also could invoke a rarely used rule that permits it to order a rehearing on its own, without any petition, if the judges deem the matter to involve “a question of exceptional importance.” Judge Sullivan, who has a lawyer representing him in the appeals court, could ask the full court to reverse the order. The full court also could invoke a rarely used rule that permits it to order a rehearing on its own, without any petition, if the judges deem the matter to involve “a question of exceptional importance.”
The ruling turned on a technical question — whether, as a legal matter, Judge Sullivan has the authority to scrutinize Mr. Barr’s motivation or had to acquiesce to the Justice Department request that he rubber-stamp dropping the case without reviewing the motion’s legitimacy. The ruling turned on a technical question — whether, as a legal matter, Judge Sullivan had the authority to scrutinize Mr. Barr’s motivation or had to acquiesce to the Justice Department request that he rubber-stamp dropping the case without reviewing the motion’s legitimacy.
But at a House Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Political Interference and Threats to Prosecutorial Independence” on Wednesday, where two Justice Department officials testified about other law enforcement decisions by and under Mr. Barr, Republican lawmakers treated the ruling as vindicating the attorney general’s claim that the Flynn case was unjust on the merits. But at a House Judiciary Committee hearing titled “Political Interference and Threats to Prosecutorial Independence” on Wednesday, where two Justice Department officials testified about other law enforcement decisions by and under Mr. Barr, Republican lawmakers treated the ruling as vindicating the attorney general’s claim that the Flynn case was unjust on the merits.
“We obviously know the Flynn charge was wrong as evidenced by what happened today,” said Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio.“We obviously know the Flynn charge was wrong as evidenced by what happened today,” said Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio.
At the White House, Mr. Trump told reporters he was “very happy about General Flynn,” adding: “He’s been exonerated. I want to congratulate him.” At the White House, Mr. Trump told reporters he was “very happy about General Flynn,” adding: “He’s been exonerated, and I want to congratulate him.”
Kerri Kupec, a Justice Department spokeswoman, celebrated the unexpected result, writing on Twitter: “WIN in General Flynn’s case.” Asked for comment, Ms. Kupec added that the department was pleased with the panel’s ruling. But Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, called on the full appeals court to review the panel’s decision, arguing at the House hearing that judges should be able to “look into the executive branch when what they do is not in the interest of justice.”
He also portrayed Judge Rao in political terms, noting that until she became a judge last year, she had led a White House agency that oversees regulations. Under Mr. Trump, he said, that agency “does what Trump likes best, which is jeopardize the safe air and water of the American public and give into industry and profits and pollution. And she did a good job of it.”
Judge Rao’s decision not to permit Judge Sullivan to scrutinize the Justice Department request to withdraw the Flynn charge was joined by Judge Karen L. Henderson, a 1990 appointee of President George Bush.Judge Rao’s decision not to permit Judge Sullivan to scrutinize the Justice Department request to withdraw the Flynn charge was joined by Judge Karen L. Henderson, a 1990 appointee of President George Bush.
The fact that the two of them turned out to be on the panel had been seen as a good sign for Mr. Flynn because each of them have proved more willing than the majority of their colleagues to interpret the law in Mr. Trump’s favor in other politically charged cases, like disputes over congressional subpoenas for his financial records and whether Congress may see secret grand-jury evidence from the Russia investigation. The fact that the two of them turned out to be on the panel had been seen as a good sign for Mr. Flynn because each has proved more willing than the majority of their colleagues to interpret the law in Mr. Trump’s favor in other politically charged cases, like disputes over congressional subpoenas for his financial records and whether Congress may see secret grand-jury evidence from the Russia investigation.
But the ruling was nevertheless a surprise because both of them — and Judge Henderson in particular — had asked many questions during oral arguments this month that seemed to signal skepticism about short-circuiting Judge Sullivan’s review.But the ruling was nevertheless a surprise because both of them — and Judge Henderson in particular — had asked many questions during oral arguments this month that seemed to signal skepticism about short-circuiting Judge Sullivan’s review.
A third judge on the panel, Judge Robert L. Wilkins, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, dissented. He said Judge Sullivan should be permitted to complete his review of the prosecutor’s actions and whether they are impermissible before deciding whether to grant the government’s motion to dismiss, citing the unusual circumstances of the Justice Department’s “abrupt reversal on the facts and the law” and the opacity of what happened. A third judge on the panel, Robert L. Wilkins, a 2014 appointee of President Barack Obama, dissented. He said Judge Sullivan should be permitted to complete his review of whether the prosecutor’s actions were impermissible before deciding whether to grant the motion to dismiss, citing the unusual circumstances of the Justice Department’s “abrupt reversal on the facts and the law” and the opacity of what happened.
In a dissenting opinion, he said his colleagues had made a series of mistakes that rendered a “dead letter” the portion of the rule of criminal procedure that says cases may only be dismissed with a judge’s approval, or “leave of the court” — at least when the defense and prosecution agree that a case should be dropped.In a dissenting opinion, he said his colleagues had made a series of mistakes that rendered a “dead letter” the portion of the rule of criminal procedure that says cases may only be dismissed with a judge’s approval, or “leave of the court” — at least when the defense and prosecution agree that a case should be dropped.
Instead, he argued, the law requires that Judge Sullivan be permitted to rule — and if Mr. Flynn and the Justice Department do not like what he decides, they can then file an appeal. Instead, he argued, the law requires that Judge Sullivan be permitted to rule — and if Mr. Flynn and the Justice Department do not like what he decides, they can then appeal.
“The district court must be given a reasonable opportunity to consider and hold a hearing on the government’s request to ensure that it is not clearly contrary to the public interest,” he wrote. “I therefore dissent.” “The District Court must be given a reasonable opportunity to consider and hold a hearing on the government’s request to ensure that it is not clearly contrary to the public interest,” he wrote. “I therefore dissent.”
Mr. Trump fired Mr. Flynn in early 2017 for lying to Vice President Pence and other colleagues about what he and the Russian ambassador discussed in December 2016. After realizing that Mr. Flynn was lying to his colleagues about the calls, the F.B.I. questioned him on Jan. 24, 2017, and he against falsely denied what they had discussed. Mr. Trump fired Mr. Flynn in early 2017 for lying to Vice President Mike Pence and other colleagues about what he and the Russian ambassador discussed in December 2016. After realizing that Mr. Flynn was lying to his colleagues about the calls, the F.B.I. questioned him on Jan. 24, 2017, and he again falsely denied what they had discussed.
Mr. Flynn later struck a deal with prosecutors working for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to cooperate and plead guilty to one count of making a false statement to the F.B.I. agents. The deal would resolve his liability for that crime as well as for failing to register as a paid foreign agent of Turkey in 2016 and then signing forms in 2017 lying about the nature of that work.Mr. Flynn later struck a deal with prosecutors working for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to cooperate and plead guilty to one count of making a false statement to the F.B.I. agents. The deal would resolve his liability for that crime as well as for failing to register as a paid foreign agent of Turkey in 2016 and then signing forms in 2017 lying about the nature of that work.
But after Mr. Flynn twice pleaded guilty, he switched last year to a new defense lawyer — Ms. Powell — who began accusing the F.B.I. and prosecutors of misconduct. After Judge Sullivan rejected her accusations as unfounded late last year, Mr. Flynn sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Mr. Barr then assigned an outside prosecutor to scour Mr. Flynn’s case file, turning over internal documents showing that the F.B.I. was aggressive in decisions related to questioning him.But after Mr. Flynn twice pleaded guilty, he switched last year to a new defense lawyer — Ms. Powell — who began accusing the F.B.I. and prosecutors of misconduct. After Judge Sullivan rejected her accusations as unfounded late last year, Mr. Flynn sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Mr. Barr then assigned an outside prosecutor to scour Mr. Flynn’s case file, turning over internal documents showing that the F.B.I. was aggressive in decisions related to questioning him.
Among other things, the documents showed that the F.B.I. had decided to close an investigation into whether Mr. Flynn was a Russian agent before the issue of his calls with the Russian ambassador arose, at which point it used the fact that the inquiry remained open to interview him about the new concern. They also showed that James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, violated bureaucratic protocol when he unilaterally sent agents to question Mr. Flynn, amid unfinished deliberations with the acting attorney general about how to do it.Among other things, the documents showed that the F.B.I. had decided to close an investigation into whether Mr. Flynn was a Russian agent before the issue of his calls with the Russian ambassador arose, at which point it used the fact that the inquiry remained open to interview him about the new concern. They also showed that James B. Comey, then the F.B.I. director, violated bureaucratic protocol when he unilaterally sent agents to question Mr. Flynn, amid unfinished deliberations with the acting attorney general about how to do it.
Ms. Powell used those documents to renew her allegations that law enforcement officials railroaded her client, even as the president indicated that he was considering pardoning Mr. Flynn. But in May, Mr. Barr intervened again, directing a prosecutor to seek to simply dismiss the case with prejudice — meaning it could not be refiled by the Justice Department under any future administration — on the theory that Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any legitimate investigation. Ms. Powell used those documents to renew her allegations that law enforcement officials railroaded her client, even as the president indicated that he was considering pardoning Mr. Flynn. But in May, Mr. Barr intervened again, directing a prosecutor to seek to dismiss the case with prejudice — meaning it could not be refiled by the Justice Department under any future administration — on the theory that Mr. Flynn’s lies to the F.B.I. were not “material” to any legitimate investigation.
Mr. Barr’s move was widely seen as extraordinary and a break with the Justice Department’s approach in cases not involving a presidential favorite, fueling accusations of politicization. In particular, legal experts broadly disputed his notion that the false statements were immaterial, since they bore on the broader counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump campaign officials had coordinated with Russia’s 2016 election interference.Mr. Barr’s move was widely seen as extraordinary and a break with the Justice Department’s approach in cases not involving a presidential favorite, fueling accusations of politicization. In particular, legal experts broadly disputed his notion that the false statements were immaterial, since they bore on the broader counterintelligence investigation into whether Trump campaign officials had coordinated with Russia’s 2016 election interference.
The outsider whom Judge Sullivan had appointed to critique the Justice Department motion — John Gleeson, a former federal judge — had argued that its arguments for dropping the case were baseless and a “pretext” for an illegitimate political intervention on behalf of a presidential favorite. He urged Judge Sullivan to instead sentence Mr. Flynn. The outsider whom Judge Sullivan had appointed to critique the Justice Department motion — John Gleeson, a former federal judge — had argued that its stated reasons for dropping the case were baseless and a “pretext” for an illegitimate political intervention on behalf of a presidential favorite. He urged Judge Sullivan to instead sentence Mr. Flynn.
The Justice Department and Ms. Powell have rejected that critique, arguing that dismissal of the case was both warranted on the facts and that Judge Sullivan had no authority to question the executive branch’s decision not to press forward with a prosecution. Mr. Gleeson was due to file a response to those rebuttals on Wednesday, and told Judge Sullivan that he had finished it but sought clarity about whether to file it. The Justice Department and Ms. Powell have rejected that critique, arguing that dismissal of the case was warranted on the facts and that Judge Sullivan had no authority to question the executive branch’s decision not to press forward with a prosecution. Mr. Gleeson had been due to file a response to those rebuttals on Wednesday before Judge Sullivan suspended the proceedings.
The appeals panel ruling could effectively end the case, if Judge Sullivan acquiesces. But even if he instead asks the full appeals court to vacate the order and rehear the matter — or the full court decides to intervene on its own — the ruling seemed likely at a minimum to disrupt his plan to hold a hearing on July 16 on whether to dismiss the charge against Mr. Flynn.
Katie Benner contributed reporting.Katie Benner contributed reporting.