DOJ: Courts Can’t Hold DOJ Accountable If It Drops A Case For Corrupt Reasons
The Justice Department defended its decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, arguing broadly that any scrutiny of its decision would wreak havoc on the department. U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Jeff Wall cast the argument in stark constitutional terms, suggesting that the judge in the Flynn case had already damaged both the Justice Department and the judiciary by subjecting the DOJ’s decision to move to drop charges against Flynn to public examination. “This has already become, and I think is only becoming more of, a public spectacle,” Wall said of actions by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan for the District of Columbia. Wall repeatedly expressed worry at the idea that Sullivan would attempt to conduct some kind of discovery at the DOJ through affidavits or declarations. Sullivan has yet to suggest that he would do so, and has yet to rule on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss. “You’ll have a proceeding forcing us to explain ourselves,” Wall said. “The district court has left itself room not just for documents of that kind or witnesses; that is going to intrude on our deliberative process.” He added that the “spectacle” would end up “impugning the motives of the Attorney General of the United States.” Wall described the amicus brief of John Gleeson — the outside attorney Sullivan appointed to oppose the DOJ request to dismiss the case — as a “polemic” alleging “gross misconduct.” Broadly, though, Wall focused on the idea that court proceedings were not the forum for handling allegations of corruption against the Justice Department in making prosecutorial decisions. That, he maintained, is a political question to be handled away from the courts. The Flynn case is just one example of… Read More
