The Looming Presidential Pardons

Despite the frivolous lawsuits and cries that the election was “stolen,” president Trump will leave office on January 20, 2021. Almost as certain as his departure is that he will grant a flurry of pardons on his way out the door, perhaps including trying to pardon himself. Given the breadth of the pardon power, there is little that can be done about that. Such pardons, even if controversial, will almost certainly be valid – with the possible exception of a self-pardon. But despite his anticipated best efforts, Trump will not be able to completely shield his family and colleagues – or himself – from future legal liability.

Source and Scope of the Pardon Power

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president the power “to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This clause traces its roots to the power to grant clemency that English kings had for centuries. It’s an important part of our system of checks and balances, allowing the president to correct mistakes or perceived excesses in the justice system or simply to grant forgiveness in appropriate cases. Other than excluding impeachment, the Constitution contains no limits on this presidential power.

Although often referred to by the shorthand “pardon power,” this clause gives the president the ability to grant other forms of clemency as well, such as a commutation or reduction of sentence. For example, in the recent case of Roger Stone, president Trump commuted Stone’s 40-month sentence to keep him out of prison but did not grant him a full pardon. Similarly, president George W. Bush commuted the sentence of White House aide Scooter Libby for his role in the Valerie Plame/CIA leak case but refused to grant Libby a pardon, despite the vigorous objections of Libby’s boss, Dick Cheney.

A pardon represents presidential forgiveness for federal crimes that have been, or may have been, committed. It does not expunge any convictions or seal the recipient’s record, and the recipient still stands convicted. But a pardon removes collateral consequences that may flow from a conviction, such as restrictions on the right to own a firearm or the right to vote. A person whose sentence is commuted but who is not pardoned still bears those other consequences. That’s why someone who has merely had their sentence commuted might seek a full pardon later. Trump pardoned Scooter Libby a decade after Bush had refused to do so, and it seems likely Trump will pardon Stone now that the election is over.

Another difference is that a commutation or reduction of sentence can only come into play if the recipient has actually been convicted and sentenced to some form of punishment. A pardon, on the other hand, may be granted even if a person has not yet been convicted of anything – Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon being the most famous example.

A presidential pardon may only cover crimes that have already been committed. A president cannot grant a sort of prospective immunity, authorizing someone to engage in future criminal acts by granting them a blanket pardon.

Most significantly for Trump, the president may only grant pardons for federal crimes. He cannot pardon anyone for state offenses.  If an individual receives a presidential pardon, a state generally is still free to prosecute that individual for the same acts if they also constitute state crimes.

Trump’s Use of the Pardon Power

Trump’s use of the pardon power has been controversial. For the most part, he has bypassed the system set up within the Department of Justice and the Office of the Pardon Attorney for reviewing petitions for clemency. He has been more likely to grant clemency based on appeals by a Fox News host, political ally, or other personal connection. His more controversial pardons include Libby, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza. He was roundly condemned, including by many in the military, for pardoning soldiers convicted of committing war crimes in Afghanistan, after their cause was promoted on Fox News. Trump also commuted the sentence of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, who was serving a fourteen-year sentence after being convicted of multiple counts of corruption.

Former president Bill Clinton
Former president Bill Clinton

Pardons as a President Leaves Office

It’s not unusual for presidents to grant a number pardons as they are getting ready to leave office. Some of those pardons have been controversial. Bill Clinton pardoned fugitive financier Mark Rich on his last day in office. The FBI later investigated that pardon based on allegations it may have been granted in exchange for large donations to Democrats and the Clinton presidential library by Rich and his wife, although no criminal charges were ever filed. Clinton also pardoned his own brother, Roger, for a minor drug offense.

As he was about to leave office, George H.W. Bush pardoned six defendants about to go to trial over the Iran-Contra affair, including former defense secretary Casper Weinberger. Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh was outraged, suggesting the pardons might constitute obstruction of justice and that Bush acted to prevent information about his own involvement in the scandal from being revealed. (In an interesting historical twist, Bush’s move was supported by then-attorney general William Barr.)

So Trump certainly would not be the first president to raise some eyebrows with his parting pardons. But no previous president has ever had the potential to pardon so many of his own family members or close associates, including many who could potentially implicate the president himself in criminal activity. And no president has tried to pardon himself – although Nixon reportedly considered it.

Michael Flynn
Michael Flynn

Who Might Receive a Pardon?

The Mueller Defendants

The first likely recipients of a Trump pardon are those convicted as a result of the Mueller investigation. Trump, of course, has repeatedly attacked that investigation. His attorney general, William Barr, misled the public about Mueller’s report and has worked to undermine prosecutions that resulted, including by seeking to dismiss the Michael Flynn case and intervening in the sentencing of Roger Stone. It would be easy for Trump to justify these pardons by claiming they were all the result of the illegitimate Mueller “witch hunt.” Such pardons would have the added benefit for Trump of rewarding those who could potentially implicate him in wrongdoing and ensuring their continued loyalty.

Flynn seems like a prime candidate for such a pardon. Barr’s DOJ has tried to drop the charges against him after he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI. The case remains mired in litigation over whether the trial judge must grant the government’s flawed motion to dismiss. By moving to drop the charges, Barr tried to free Flynn while allowing Trump to avoid taking the political heat of granting a pardon prior to the election. Now that the election is over, those political concerns are gone. Given the history, it frankly would be shocking if Trump did not pardon Flynn.

Roger Stone is another likely candidate. Trump commuted his sentence as he was about to report to jail, but now that the election is over look for Trump to bump that commutation up to a full pardon. Stone remained loyal by lying to Congress to protect Trump and refusing to cooperate even when prosecuted for those lies. Expect him to be further rewarded with a full pardon.

The outlook for other Mueller defendants is more cloudy. At times Trump has expressed sympathy for his former campaign manager Paul Manafort, who was convicted of money laundering and related financial crimes based on his work in Ukraine. Manafort pleaded guilty in a second case and agreed to cooperate with Mueller, but ended up lying to Mueller’s investigators. Trump and Manafort were reportedly never that close, but Trump might still pardon him just to take a shot at Mueller. The same is true for deputy campaign manager Rick Gates. Other lesser Russiagate players such as George Papadopoulos might be pardoned as well, again if for no other reason than to try to erase any results of the Mueller probe.

Other Former Insiders

Trump’s former personal attorney Michael Cohen almost certainly does not expect a pardon. Cohen was convicted of fraud and other charges in New York in a case that was spun off from the Mueller probe. His plea notably included a campaign finance charge for the payoff to Stormy Daniels that Cohen says was made at Trump’s direction. He potentially has a great deal of information that could implicate the president. But Cohen has completely turned against Trump, writing a harshly critical book and regularly criticizing him on cable news. He has said he doesn’t want a pardon, and he’s almost certainly going to get his wish.

Other former insiders have legal troubles of their own, but have also fallen out of Trump’s favor. For example, former presidential advisor Steve Bannon is now facing a federal fraud indictment for his involvement in a bogus fundraising scheme related to building Trump’s border wall. Bannon was once the consummate insider, but has also been critical of Trump since leaving the White House. Don’t expect him to receive any presidential clemency.

Donald Trump Jr.
Donald Trump Jr.

Trump Family Members

Up to this point we’ve been considering those who have already been charged or convicted. But Trump could also pardon individuals who have not yet been charged with anything, including members of his own family. For example, he could issue pardons for his son Don Jr. and son-in-law Jared Kushner for any crimes committed in connection with the 2016 presidential campaign and possible cooperation with Russia in its efforts to influence that campaign, or for any cover-up crimes related to the later investigations by Mueller and by Congress.

It’s not clear Don Jr. or Kushner want or need any such pardons; Mueller did not find that they had any criminal liability. But Mueller was not able to obtain all the information that he sought, and other facts could come to light under a new administration. Trump might be interested in issuing a sort of prophylactic pardon for any criminal acts related to Russia, the campaign, or the subsequent investigations, just as a precaution. On the other hand, he might conclude that issuing such pardons could make it sound like there was something to the “Russia hoax” after all.

Those who have not been charged or convicted could be reluctant to accept a pardon because they might think it would mean admitting they had done something  wrong. But as I discussed in this earlier post, the view that accepting a pardon means you are admitting  guilt is now generally discredited. For example, if a president were to pardon someone convicted of murder and then exonerated by DNA evidence, we clearly wouldn’t say that defendant is admitting he is guilty if he accepts the pardon. Trump family members and associates could easily claim they have done nothing wrong but will accept the pardons just to prevent a future, vindictive Democratic administration from pursuing baseless allegations.

Other Possible Pardons

There are other investigations that Trump could potentially try to head off by granting pardons. Not all of them are public, so it’s hard to know the full scope of what he could do here. For example, an investigation into financial misconduct related to the 2016 Trump inauguration may still be pending in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. There could be other investigations pending within that office related to potential financial crimes by the Trump Organization. Presidential attorney Rudy Giuliani is reportedly still under investigation for some of his overseas business activities. To the extent there are such investigation still ongoing, Trump could short-circuit them by simply pardoning everyone who is under scrutiny.

Could Granting the Pardons Be a Crime?

It’s legally possible for granting a pardon to be a criminal act;  for example, if a president granted a pardon in exchange for a bribe. During the Mueller investigation there were allegations that Trump attorneys had dangled the possibility of pardons in front of witnesses to encourage them not to cooperate. As I wrote here, had that been established I think it could constitute bribery. Similarly, granting a pardon to head off an investigation into the president himself could potentially constitute obstruction of justice. But at this late stage, proving the requisite corrupt intent to make any of Trump’s parting pardons a potential crime would be extremely difficult.

Can Trump Pardon Himself?

The great unanswered question is whether Trump can pardon himself. Trump has claimed he has that right, but most legal experts disagree. The Office of Legal Counsel in Nixon’s Department of Justice opined that a president could not self-pardon. But no court has ever ruled on the question, and that OLC opinion is not binding on Trump. He could be the first president to test this legal proposition.  

For example, Trump could pardon himself for any obstruction of justice he may have committed during the Mueller investigation – probably his most clear-cut criminal exposure. If a Biden Department of Justice then tried to indict him for that obstruction – a big “if” — Trump would raise the pardon as a defense and move to dismiss. That would seem like a legal question destined to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Again, Trump may be reluctant to grant himself a pardon if he thinks it makes him look guilty. But he could easily rationalize it by saying he has done nothing wrong but needs to protect him from future unjustified “witch hunts.”

Trump and Pence
Mike Pence with President Trump

The Possible Pence Gambit

Trump could also engage in some more complicated gymnastics to seek to ensure that he receives a valid pardon. For example, he could resign the presidency prior to Biden’s inauguration. Mike Pence would then become president, with the power to pardon Trump.

Imagine this scenario: Over the next few weeks, Trump pardons his family members, associates, and anyone else who needs it, perhaps including Pence himself. Trump then resigns on the morning  of January 20, a few hours before Biden is inaugurated. Pence is sworn in and becomes president for the morning, and issues the pardon to Trump. It sounds crazy, but a lot of crazy things have happened over the past four years.

Trump could also act under the 25th Amendment to declare himself temporarily unable to perform the duties of president. That would make Pence the acting president until Trump declares himself fit again, and Pence could grant the pardon.  Of course, if Trump’s declaration was found to be a fabrication, that could call any such pardon into question.

It’s unclear whether Trump is interested in pardoning himself, or whether he would be willing to take the more dramatic step of resigning early to allow Pence to pardon him. It’s also unclear whether Pence, who has to think about his own political future, would agree to go along.

State Charges and Civil Cases

The most ominous aspect of all this for Trump is his inability to grant pardons for state charges. New York District Attorney Cyrus Vance has been conducting a grand jury investigation of Trump and the Trump Organization for the past couple of years and has been fighting to obtain Trump’s tax returns. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor last spring; the matter is now back before the Court and he is likely to prevail once again.  Vance has indicated that possible charges include not just the Stormy Daniels hush money payments but also bank fraud, insurance fraud, or tax fraud.

These potential state charges pose a real risk to Trump, and as president he can’t really do anything about them. If he does end up facing any criminal charges after he leaves office, New York state is the most likely source.

Trump also can’t pardon his way out of the many civil cases against him that may be pending or may be brought in the future, such as the defamation case by E. Jean Carroll, a woman who claims Trump sexually assaulted her. These can’t result in criminal convictions, of course, but could require Trump to pay damages or face other civil sanctions.

It will be very interesting to see what Trump does in the next couple of months. The expected flurry of pardons may turn out to be maddening and even shocking – another entry in the catalogue of outrages from this administration. But despite the awesome power of the presidency, Trump will be unable to shield himself and those around him from all potential legal consequences after he leaves office.

Like this post? Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list

The Status of the Michael Flynn Case

Update: On June 24, 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Circuit granted the petition for mandamus and ordered Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case. Sullivan or one of the circuit judges may request en banc review by the full court.

Further update: On August 31, 2020, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed the panel opinion on mandamus by an 8-2 vote, sending the case back to Judge Sullivan to rule on the motion to dismiss.

The Michael Flynn case is no longer just about a senior government official who lied to the FBI. The prosecution of president Trump’s former national security advisor has become a symbolic struggle over the separation of powers and a showcase for allegations of corruption within the Trump Justice Department. Regardless of the outcome of these court proceedings, Flynn is unlikely ever to see the inside of a jail cell. But how the case plays out over the next few weeks will be an important test of the ability – and willingness – of the judiciary to push back against the Trump administration’s abuse of the justice system.

Michael Flynn
Michael Flynn

Procedural History of the Flynn Case

Flynn pleaded guilty in December 2017 to one count of lying to the FBI. During his guilty plea, Flynn admitted under oath that he had lied to FBI agents about his contacts with the Russian ambassador in December 2016 on behalf of the incoming Trump administration. He confirmed his guilt under oath a second time after his case was transferred to judge Emmet Sullivan. Flynn’s sentencing was substantially delayed while he cooperated with the government during the Mueller investigation.

Once the Mueller probe was concluded, however, Flynn changed his tune. Last summer he fired his respected defense team from the leading D.C. firm of Covington & Burling and hired Sydney Powell, a vocal DOJ critic and Fox News regular. In recent months Powell moved to withdraw Flynn’s guilty plea and to have the charges dismissed, claiming Flynn was an innocent victim of government misconduct. Those motions are still pending before Judge Sullivan.

But the real bombshell in the case landed last month. On May 7 the Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss Flynn’s case. After defending Flynn’s prosecution in court for more than two years, DOJ told the court it now believed Flynn had not actually committed a crime and never should have been prosecuted in the first place.

In response to this startling motion, Judge Sullivan made it clear he wasn’t simply going to accept the government’s claims at face value. Since Flynn and the DOJ were now on the same side, Sullivan appointed a respected former federal judge, John Gleeson, to present any legal arguments against the government’s motion. He also asked Gleeson to advise him on whether Flynn should be charged with contempt for lying during his plea proceedings.

Rather than wait for Judge Sullivan to rule, on May 19 Flynn’s attorney took the unusual step of asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to issue a writ of mandamus – an order telling Sullivan that he has to grant the motion to dismiss without any further proceedings or delay. The court of appeals asked to hear arguments on the mandamus petition, and Sullivan appointed prominent D.C. attorney Beth Wilkinson to represent him. The Justice Department filed a brief in support of Flynn, and the court of appeals heard arguments on the mandamus petition on Friday, June 12.

As of today, the posture of the case is that Sullivan has a hearing set for July 16 on the motion to dismiss. But before that happens, we expect to hear from the D.C. Circuit on whether it will grant Flynn’s petition for mandamus. If it does, it will order Sullivan to grant the motion and the case will be over. If the circuit court denies the petition, Sullivan will hold the hearing and then either grant the motion to dismiss or deny it and set Flynn’s case for sentencing.

There are two different types of issues presented by these various legal maneuvers: the merits and the process. The merits issue is whether the government’s motion to dismiss should be granted and how much discretion, if any, Judge Sullivan has to review the government’s purported reasons for the dismissal. The process issue is who gets to decide those questions in the first instance: Judge Sullivan, or the Court of Appeals?

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan

Who Gets to Decide?

The process issue is far easier. There are definitely novel and difficult questions raised by the government’s motion to dismiss. But in the ordinary course of legal proceedings, it’s the trial judge who gets to decide those issues first. Sullivan may well end up granting the motion to dismiss, and the case will be over. If he denies the motion, Flynn could appeal to the D.C. Circuit at that time. But there is no justification for the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus, which would allow Flynn (and the government) improperly to sidestep the proceedings before Sullivan.

Flynn and the DOJ argue that mandamus is appropriate because Judge Sullivan has no discretion here. There is no longer an active dispute before the court, because both the defense and the prosecution agree they want the case dismissed. Because the executive branch has sole discretion to decide whether to prosecute, they argue, the judge lacks the constitutional authority to keep the case alive.

One difficulty with this argument is that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), which governs motions to dismiss, says the government may dismiss a case only “with leave of court.” As Judge Wilkins repeatedly pointed out during the D.C. Circuit argument on Friday, that language must mean something. It suggests there is a role for the court to play and that the judge is not merely a rubber stamp. Attorneys for Powell and the DOJ have struggled to explain how “with leave of court” actually means that the court has no choice.

Whether a judge has the authority to deny a motion to dismiss that is agreed to by both sides is an unsettled question. In Rinaldi v. United States the Supreme Court stated:

The words “leave of court” were inserted in Rule 48(a) without explanation. While they obviously vest some discretion in the court, the circumstances in which that discretion may properly be exercised have not been delineated by this Court. The principal object of the “leave of court” requirement is apparently to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment, e.g., charging, dismissing, and recharging, when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection. But the Rule has also been held [by lower courts] to permit the court to deny a Government dismissal motion to which the defendant has consented if the motion is prompted by considerations clearly contrary to the public interest. (emphasis added, citations omitted)

That’s the issue presented in Flynn’s case: whether Judge Sullivan has the authority to deny the motion to dismiss based on a finding that the motion was prompted by “considerations clearly contrary to the public interest” – namely corruption within the DOJ and the fact that Flynn is a political ally of president Trump’s.  The Supreme Court did not decide in Rinaldi whether a judge has that kind of authority, and that question remains unresolved.

The Need for “Regular Order”

The fact that Sullivan’s authority is unsettled is why the mandamus petition should be denied. Mandamus is an extraordinary and unusual remedy. It requires the law to be so clear that there is no possible debate about the proper outcome; the movant must be “clearly and indisputably” entitled to relief and have no other adequate remedy. That’s simply not true in this case. The legal standards governing this motion are unresolved, not “clear and indisputable,” and Flynn has an adequate remedy: let the judge decide his motion, as in any other case.

As Judge Henderson repeatedly pointed out during the D.C. Circuit argument, “regular order” demands that the trial judge, Judge Sullivan, gets to decide those difficult issues in the first instance. That will allow the facts to be fully developed and the arguments on both sides to be heard, and will allow Sullivan to make findings of fact and rulings of law. An appeal to the D.C. Circuit could then follow, if necessary. That’s how our court system works. You don’t get an exception for being the president’s pal.

The mandamus petition argues that Sullivan has no authority to deny the motion to dismiss. Sullivan may well end up agreeing. But Flynn is saying Sullivan can’t even consider the question; can’t even hear the arguments on both sides and make a decision. That’s wrong.

I think the D.C. Circuit is likely to deny the mandamus petition. Judge Sullivan should get to decide the motion to dismiss before the court of appeals gets involved.

Former federal judge John Gleeson

The Merits of the Motion to Dismiss

On the merits, the government’s motion to dismiss is remarkably weak. Judge Gleeson, the amicus appointed by Judge Sullivan, concluded that the arguments advanced by the government are “pretextual” and that the motion is “riddled with inexplicable and elementary errors of law and fact.” I think Gleeson is correct. The legal arguments are frankly laughable. They are also inconsistent with arguments the government itself has made repeatedly over the more than two years this case has been pending.

The government argues first that it now does not believe Flynn’s lies to the FBI were material, as required by the false statements statute. But materiality is a very low bar — a statement need only have the potential to influence some government decision. Flynn’s lies to the FBI about his Russian contacts, made in connection with the FBI’s investigation of Russia and the Trump campaign, easily meet that standard. As Judge Gleeson put it: 

In short, pursuant to an active investigation into whether President Trump’s campaign officials coordinated activities with the Government of Russia, one of those officials lied to the FBI about coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. It is hard to conceive of a more material false statement than this one.

The government claims the lies could not be material because they were not related to a properly predicated investigation of Flynn. This too is nonsense. You don’t have to be the subject of an active investigation yourself to lie to the FBI, or for the FBI to have a reason to interview you. Whether a particular investigation was properly opened or was about to be closed are, as Judge Gleeson noted, simply matters of “bureaucratic happenstance that had no bearing on whether the FBI could or should interview Flynn” about his Russian contacts. In other words, even if the FBI screws up some internal paperwork or procedure before your interview, you don’t get a free pass to lie.

The government also claims it now believes it could not prove that Flynn intentionally lied. Of course, it doesn’t have to prove that, because Flynn himself has already admitted it repeatedly, under oath. He also lied to others in the Trump administration, which is why he was fired after only a couple of weeks on the job. In his brief, Judge Gleeson describes in meticulous detail the various false statements Flynn made during his interview and why they were false.

Judge Sullivan has already ruled – agreeing with earlier arguments made by the prosecutors – that Flynn’s statements were material. Flynn himself has repeatedly acknowledged under oath that he lied to the agents. But the government now claims it could not prove materiality or that Flynn lied. It’s easy to see why Gleeson concluded that the government’s arguments are legally unsound and are a transparent effort to drop the case simply to benefit an ally of president Trump.

What Should Sullivan Do?

The legal arguments in support of the government’s motion to dismiss may be laughable, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Sullivan should, or can, deny the motion. As noted above, the “leave of court” requirement in Rule 48(a) indicates the court does not have to simply serve as a rubber stamp in the face of such obviously pretextual arguments for dismissal. And the Supreme Court’s footnote in Rinaldi at least notes the possibility that the motion could be denied if contrary to the public interest. But when both the prosecutor and defense agree a case should be dismissed, can the judge really insist that the case go forward?  And what would that look like?

In his brief filed on June 10, Judge Gleeson argued that Sullivan should deny the motion and proceed to sentence Flynn. Gleeson pulled no punches, accusing the DOJ of a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power.” He argued that the motion to dismiss was an “unconvincing effort to disguise as legitimate a decision to dismiss that is based solely on the fact that Flynn is a political ally of President Trump.”

As Gleeson points out, the integrity of the judicial branch is at stake here too. The judge is not required to be complicit if he finds an abuse of the prosecutor’s authority:

The Executive Branch had the unreviewable discretion to never charge Flynn with acrime because he is a friend and political ally of President Trump. President Trump today has the unreviewable authority to issue a pardon, thus ensuring that Flynn is no longer prosecuted and never punished for his crimes because he is a friend and political ally. But the instant the Executive Branch filed a criminal charge against Flynn, it forfeited the right to implicate this Court in the dismissal of that charge simply because Flynn is a friend and political ally of the President. Avoiding precisely that unseemly outcome is why Rule 48(a) requires “leave of court.” 

Gleeson argues that accepting the government’s false reasons for dismissal would undermine the public’s confidence in the rule of law by demonstrating that the Trump DOJ may act to benefit the president’s political cronies with impunity.

Admittedly, denying a motion to dismiss supported by both sides could present difficulties in some cases. As Flynn and the government’s lawyers argued in the D.C. Circuit, a judge has no mechanism to compel prosecutors to move forward with a case they want to dismiss. But in the current posture of Flynn’s case, that’s not really an issue. Flynn’s prosecution is essentially over; there is nothing more that prosecutors need to do. All that remains is sentencing, and prosecutors have already filed memoranda setting forth their positions on that. Sullivan could easily proceed to sentence Flynn even if the current prosecutors decline to speak at the hearing.

I don’t know how Judge Sullivan will ultimately decide the motion to dismiss. I wouldn’t be surprised if he grants it in the end. But if he does, it won’t be because the government is right on the merits. It will be because he agrees that in our constitutional structure the executive branch has absolute authority over decisions to prosecute. He may rule that even if a prosecution is dropped for corrupt reasons, the remedy has to lie elsewhere. The remedy is not to try to force the prosecution to proceed — which, in most cases if not this one, would be impossible anyway. But if Sullivan decides a judge does indeed have the authority to deny a motion to dismiss because it is contrary to the public interest, he will likely deny the motion. The posture and facts of this case make it a great candidate for such a denial.

Won’t Trump Just Pardon Flynn Anyway?

Many feel that this entire proceeding is an exercise in futility. After all, even if Sullivan ended up denying the motion to dismiss, sentenced Flynn to prison, and that was upheld on appeal, it seems almost certain that president Trump would step in and pardon him. So as I mentioned at the outset, no matter how this all turns out, Flynn is unlikely ever to see the inside of a jail cell.

But regardless, this is a case where the process is important. It’s important first to uphold the principle that the president’s buddies, just like everyone else, have to pursue “regular order” in the court system. They don’t get to go over the head of a judge whose rulings they might not like and get the court of appeals to order the judge to rule their way. They need to play by the rules, present their arguments to the judge, and then appeal if necessary, just like everyone else.

Denial of the motion followed by a pardon would actually be a better result because, oddly enough, it’s more honest. If Trump wants to exercise his pardon power to benefit his political allies, he should have to take whatever political heat goes along with that. The motion to dismiss was Attorney General Barr’s attempt to do Trump’s dirty work for him – to get Flynn off the hook by pretending that justice demanded it. That should not be allowed. If Trump wants to use his power corruptly to benefit his political crony, he should have to own it.

Finally, even if Sullivan ultimately grants the motion, holding a hearing where the government has to defend the motion will provide a public airing of the government’s actions and purported reasons for the dismissal. Those who argue Sullivan must grant the motion say that even if there is corruption underlying the motion, the remedy is for the public to hold that against the politically-accountable executive branch. But that accountability can’t happen if the true reasons for the dismissal remain concealed.

During the D.C. Circuit argument, the government’s attorney objected to the idea of a hearing where the government may “have to explain itself.” That objection is telling. The “leave of court” requirement must mean, at the very least, that Judge Sullivan is entitled to an explanation. He’s entitled to explore why the government has reversed course after pursuing a case before him for more than two years. By accepting briefs, holding a hearing, and issuing a ruling containing findings of fact, Judge Sullivan can shine some sunlight on DOJ’s misconduct, even if he ultimately grants the motion. That will provide voters with information they can use to evaluate the conduct of Trump’s DOJ when they go to the polls in November.

In the end, that might be the most helpful outcome of all.

Like this post? Click here to join the Sidebars mailing list