Kerri Kupec, a spokesperson for Mr Barr, said in a statement: “The rejection is, of course, the correct result,” but did not comment on Judge Sullivan’s scathing dissection of the department’s arguments for dismissing the business before grace. Last week, the ministry officially brought the pardon to the attention of Judge Sullivan, arguing in a motion that “no further proceedings are necessary or appropriate, as the court must immediately dismiss the case with prejudice.”
Prior to the pardon, the Justice Department’s main argument for dismissing the case despite Mr. Flynn’s guilty plea was that his lies to the FBI were not a crime because they were not “important.” for a legitimate investigation since the office had decided to close an investigation. investigation into whether Mr. Flynn was a Russian agent before his tendency to lie to colleagues about the Russian ambassador raised new suspicions.
This rationale has been widely disputed, in part because FBI agents have broad authority to conduct voluntary interviews, and Mr. Flynn’s statements seemed clearly relevant to the larger investigation into the nature of any relationship between the Russian government. and the Trump campaign.
In his view, Justice Sullivan said the department’s narrow definition of what was considered “material” in the Flynn case was simply “not the law“. He called the government‘s arguments “puzzling,” contrary to what he had previously said even in the Flynn case and unsupported by what prosecutors have said in any other misrepresentation case.
He wrote that in order to close the case before pardon, he should have been satisfied that the government had made a “carefully considered judgment,” but said prosecutors “probably” failed.
The other major argument made by Mr Barr’s prosecutors after the about-face was that the Justice Department was no longer certain that it could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr Flynn had made false statements, citing statements issues surrounding the interview with the FBI that Mr. Flynn advocates have pointed out with suspicion.
Justice Sullivan also rejected these arguments.
For example, Mr. Trump’s allies pointed out that officers who interviewed him said they had not detected any signs that he was lying. But the judge said it was “irrelevant in a misrepresentation case.”