Thousands of Ex-Prosecutors Urge Flynn Judge to Question Barr's Move to Drop Case
"Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant's political connections," former prosecutors said in an open letter posted Monday.
May 11, 2020 at 01:51 PM
5 minute read
Nearly two thousand former Justice Department officials on Monday urged a Washington judge to closely examine U.S. Attorney General William Barr's move to drop the prosecution of Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser who twice pleaded guilty to lying to federal agents in the Russia investigation.
In an open letter, the former Justice Department officials from past Republican and Democratic administrations condemned the recent maneuvering in Flynn's case as a political favor for a friend of President Donald Trump and called on U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia to consider rejecting the motion to dismiss the prosecution and "proceed with sentencing if appropriate."
Sullivan has yet to give any public indication of how he will respond to the Justice Department's abandonment of Flynn's case, but many expect him to at least hold a hearing to question the reasoning for the move.
"While it is rare for a court to deny the department's request to dismiss an indictment, if ever there were a case where the public interest counseled the court to take a long, hard look at the government's explanation and the evidence, it is this one," the former Justice Department officials wrote. "Attorney General Barr's repeated actions to use the department as a tool to further President Trump's personal and political interests have undermined any claim to the deference that courts usually apply to the department's decisions about whether or not to prosecute a case."
Barr has strongly defended his Justice Department's move to end the Flynn case. Speaking with CBS news last week, Barr said a "fair history would say that it was a good decision because it upheld the rule of law. It helped, it upheld the standards of the Department of Justice, and it undid what was an injustice."
For many of the former federal prosecutors and other DOJ officials, the letter represented what in recent months has become a familiar exercise in protest. In February, many of them attached their names to a similar letter assailing Barr over his intervention in the case of Roger Stone, in which the attorney general overruled the sentencing recommendation of career prosecutors to suggest a shorter prison term for Trump's longtime friend.
With his move to dismiss the Flynn case, Barr has now "once again assaulted the rule of law," the former Justice Department lawyers said in their new letter.
"Make no mistake: The department's action is extraordinary rare, if not unprecedented. If any of us, or anyone reading this statement who is not a friend of the president, were to lie to federal investigators in the course of a properly predicated counterintelligence investigation, and admit we did so under oath, we would be prosecuted for it," the former DOJ officials added.
The Justice Department, in its motion to dismiss, based the decision to drop Flynn's case on the argument that his lies to federal agents were not "material." The filing was signed only by the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, Timothy Shea, who previously served as a close aide to Barr.
The move to dismiss Flynn's case was foreshadowed by the withdrawal of Brandon Van Grack, a career prosecutor who served on special counsel Robert Mueller III's team and played a lead role negotiating the former national security adviser's plea deal in 2017. Barr's intervention in the Stone sentencing similarly coincided with career prosecutors dropping off the case. Another prosecutor, Jonathan Kravis, resigned from the Justice Department.
On Monday, Kravis joined in the growing criticism of the Justice Department's abandonment of Flynn's case. In a Washington Post op-ed, Kravis drew a parallel between the prosecutions of Stone and Flynn.
"In both cases, the department undercut the work of career employees to protect an ally of the president, an abdication of the commitment to equal justice under the law," wrote Kravis, who has since joined the District of Columbia attorney general's office in a three-month consulting role.
"Prosecutors must make decisions based on facts and law, not on the defendant's political connections. When the department takes steps that it would never take in any other case to protect an ally of the president, it betrays this principle."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readGovernment Attorneys Are Flooding the Job Market, But Is There Room in Big Law?
4 minute readWill Khan Resign? FTC Chair Isn't Saying Whether She'll Stick Around After Giving Up Gavel
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250