US Justice Dept response to Judge Sullivan response in Flynn case June 1, 2020, “court should have granted the government’s motion to dismiss”
“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch.” …Attorney General Barr
And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”...Attorney Sidney Powell
“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019
From the
BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
June 1, 2020.
US v Michael Flynn.
“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.
This Court should issue a writ of mandamus compelling dismissal.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) provides that “[t]he government may,
with leave of court, dismiss an indictment.” That language does not authorize
a court to stand in the way of a dismissal the defendant does not oppose, and
any other reading of the Rule would violate both Article II and Article III.
Nor, under the circumstances of this case, may the district court assume the role
of prosecutor and initiate criminal charges of its own. Instead of inviting further
proceedings, the court should have granted the government’s motion to dismiss.
And given the court’s infringement on the Executive’s performance of its
constitutional duties, a writ of mandamus is appropriate, as this Court held in
similar circumstances in United States v. Fokker Services B.V., 818 F.3d 733
(D.C. Cir. 2016).”
Read more:
https://www.scribd.com/document/463961745/CADC-USDOJ-Response-Flynn
More here:
Citizen WElls 