When you stray from the Rule of Law, there's great risk of substantial damage to the law and the institutions.
The Flynn case illustrates this perfectly because it has a whole class of people (libertarians and GOP) who would normally be INCENSED by the risk of expansion of government powers actually cheering it on.
Here's why. Oversimplifying, the dispute is over WHO controls a prosecution, the prosecutors or the Court. It should be the prosecutors and you can see Trump lawyers argue that point right here:
""What I see is the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure don’t allow for what Judge Sullivan is doing," former Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker told Fox News in May. Whitaker said that prosecutors are the ones who decide which cases they pursue, and that "there’s really no discretion on the judge based on the current state of the law."
But what Whittacker says isn't actually true under the law BECAUSE the law only creates a PRESUMPTION that the prosecutor should be in control AND THAT'S THE POINT. This case -- because of the lunacy of Barr -- has the real potential to turn that power over to courts.
Here's Judge Sullivan:
"“It is unusual for a criminal defendant to claim innocence and move to withdraw his guilty plea after repeatedly swearing under oath that he committed the crime,” Sullivan argued in a court filing, referring to Flynn's past guilty plea of lying to investigators. “It is unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again, and undermine the district court’s legal and factual findings, in moving on his own to dismiss the charge years after two different federal judges accepted the defendant’s plea.”
This is the key part:
"unprecedented for an Acting U.S. Attorney to contradict the solemn representations that career prosecutors made time and again"
In other words, two different judges have heard this case over many years and in those many hearings not only has the defendant pled guilty (with counsel) several times, but the actual prosecutors at the DOJ have said many times that Flynn's lies about two different topics WERE MATERIAL. (The dispute is over materiality because Barr now says the admitted lies were not material. That's like saying "yeah he lied, but no harm")
DOJ attorneys are OFFICERS of the Court, so how can they say for years the lies were material and now they say they are not? Someone is lying TO THE COURT. And in this instance its obvious who is lying because the DOJ motion is filed by someone who wasnt even involved ("moving on his own"). The motion is filed by Barr's henchman.
So, for all the kooky conspiracy theories and BS posted in the Cove, do you at least see that your "ends justifies the means" approach could actually make it tougher for all defendants going forward because IF SULLIVAN WINS a court could now refuse a prosecutors attempt to withdraw charges. THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE BARR SHATTERED THE TRUST THE COURTS HAVE IN THE "solemn representations that career prosecutors made." Sullivan never has a chance to win until Barr stepped in.
THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON SULLIVAN IS DOING THIS. HE MIGHT LOSE, BUT IF THE APPELLATE COURT SIDES WITH HIM WE STILL PROBABLY END WITH THE SAME ULTIMATE RESULT . . BUT ONLY AT THE COST OF UPENDING the ENTIRE SYSTEM
(*Trump could've just pardoned Flynn, right? But hes not here BECAUSE OF THE POLITICS. He's literally burning down an institution that has to go forward from here for his own immediate political gain. This really isnt that hard to understand, right?)
