Trump applauds court's decision to drop Michael Flynn case

In a 2-1 decision, a D.C. circuit court of appeals ruled to drop the case against Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. The court's decision comes as Democrats on Capitol Hill question whether the Justice Department has become too politicized.

Corolyn Kaster/AP/File
Michael Flynn arrives at federal court in Washington on Dec. 18, 2018. Attorney General William Barr will testify before the House Judiciary Committee about his decisions relating to Trump associate Roger Stone, and now will likely face questions about the Flynn case.

A divided federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered the dismissal of the criminal case against President Donald Trump's former national security adviser Michael Flynn, turning back efforts by a judge to scrutinize the Justice Department's extraordinary decision to drop the prosecution.

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said in a 2-1 ruling that the Justice Department's move to abandon the case against Mr. Flynn settles the matter, even though Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty as part of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation to lying to the FBI.

The ruling, a significant win for both Mr. Flynn and the Justice Department, appears to cut short what could have been a protracted legal fight over the basis for the government's dismissal of the case. It came as Democrats question whether the Justice Department has become too politicized and Attorney General William Barr too quick to side with the president, particularly as he vocally criticizes, and even undoes, some of the results of the Russia investigation.

The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing Wednesday centered on another unusual move by Mr. Barr to overrule his own prosecutors and ask for less prison time for another Trump associate, Roger Stone. Mr. Barr has accepted an invitation to testify before the panel on July 28, a spokeswoman said Wednesday, and he will almost certainly be pressed about the Flynn case.

Mr. Trump tweeted just moments after the ruling became public: "Great! Appeals Court Upholds Justice Departments Request to Drop Criminal Case Against General Michael Flynn."

Later, at the White House, Mr. Trump told reporters he was happy for Mr. Flynn.

"He was treated horribly by a group of very bad people," Mr. Trump said. "What happened to Gen. Flynn should never happen in our country."

Mr. Flynn called into conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh's radio show and said the ruling was a good development for him and his family. But he also called it a "great boost of confidence for the American people in our justice system because that's what this really comes down to – is whether or not our justice system is going to have the confidence of the American people."

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan had declined to immediately dismiss the case, seeking instead to evaluate on his own the department's request. He appointed a retired federal judge to argue against the Justice Department's position and to consider whether Mr. Flynn could be held in criminal contempt for perjury. He had set a July 16 hearing to formally hear the request to dismiss the case.

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump nominee who was joined by Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, wrote that Judge Sullivan had overstepped his bounds by second-guessing the Justice Department's decision. This case, she said, "is not the unusual case where a more searching inquiry is justified."

"To begin with," she added, "Flynn agrees with the government's motion to dismiss, and there has been no allegation that the motion reflects prosecutorial harassment. Additionally, the government's motion includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence casting Flynn's guilt into doubt."

She called Judge Sullivan's scrutiny of the government's request an "irregular and searching" step that could force the government to have to publicly justify its decision in this case and others.

"Our precedents emphatically leave prosecutorial charging decisions to the Executive Branch and hold that a court may scrutinize a motion to dismiss only on the extraordinary showing of harassment of the defendant or malfeasance such as bribery – neither of which is manifest in the record before the district court," she wrote.

Some critics of the Justice Department's dismissal urged the full appeals court to take up the case and reverse the decision of the three-judge panel, as it is empowered to do.

In a dissent, Judge Robert Wilkins said it appeared to be the first time his court had compelled a lower court judge to rule in a particular way without giving the judge a "reasonable opportunity to issue its own ruling."

"It is a great irony that, in finding the District Court to have exceeded its jurisdiction, this Court so grievously oversteps its own," wrote Judge Wilkins, an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

Mr. Flynn was the only White House official charged in Mr. Mueller's investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.

He pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI days after the president's January 2017 inauguration about conversations he had had during the presidential transition period with the Russian ambassador, in which the two men discussed sanctions that had been imposed on Russia by the Obama administration for election interference.

The Justice Department moved to dismiss the case in May as part of a broader effort by Mr. Barr to revisit some of the decisions reached during the Russia investigation, which he has increasingly disparaged.

In its motion, the department argued that Mr. Flynn's calls with the Russian ambassador were entirely appropriate and not material to the underlying counterintelligence investigation. The department also noted that weeks before the interview, the FBI had prepared to close its investigation into Mr. Flynn after not finding evidence that he had committed any crimes.

But the retired judge appointed by Judge Sullivan, John Gleeson, called the Justice Department's request a "gross abuse" of prosecutorial power and accused the government of creating a pretext to benefit an ally of the president.

Judge Henderson, the other judge in the majority, had asked skeptical questions of lawyers for Mr. Flynn and the Justice Department during arguments earlier this month, raising the prospect she would decide in favor of leaving the case in Judge Sullivan's hands.
But she ultimately ruled in favor of dismissing the case.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. AP writers Mark Sherman, Colleen Long, and Michael Balsamo contributed to this report.

Editor’s note: As a public service, the Monitor has removed the paywall for all our coronavirus coverage. It’s free.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.