UPDATED: What If Flynn Loses?
Today in the oral arguments Sidney Powell did a masterful job of exposing what's at stake in the Flynn case at this point. She rebutted the idiotic notion that Gleeson and Sullivan will conduct a simple hearing on July 15. No, she said, the resulting inquiry would go on for "six months or more."
What she's, in effect, saying is that Sullivan plans on transforming Gleeson into a judicially appointed Special Prosecutor. Count on it: among other outrages they will make a play to depose even AG Barr and even President Trump. This will continue through the election, with the object being to force Barr and Durham to back down from prosecutions.
Our constitutional order hangs in the balance. Who will step up?
UPDATE: I've been reading up on the oral arguments--Margot Cleveland makes some good observations. The problem, of course (and not her fault), is that it's difficult to make an overall presentation of oral arguments within a few hours of the event. Will Chamberlain has a periscope tv presentation that covers a lot of ground--if you're really into this. He makes the point that, while all three judges seem to agree that Flynn deserves to have the case dismissed, the problem that arises for Henderson in particular seems to be the notion that no ruling on the motion has been made yet.
I guess I can understand that appellate judges would want to hash that issue out, but it's still a bit shocking to me. There doesn't seem to much doubt that Sullivan is gaming the system. All the judges seemed to agree that Sullivan's personally selected "amicus" submitted an "intemperate" brief. If you as an appellate judge didn't bother reading all the other evidence of Sullivan's prejudice (not to say ignorance)--accusing Flynn of "treason" comes to mind--the appointment of Gleeson should be a clue. Gleeson has made no secret of where he wants to go with this "inquiry" into Executive Branch "motives." In face of this clear attempt to game the system, it seems to me that the government's arguments to bring this miscarriage of justice to an end are totally compelling. Add to that the hardships already inflicted on Flynn, and the dithering about waiting for Sullivan to rule becomes, in my opinion, a deeply unserious position that discredits the judiciary in the eyes of the nation.
It all smacks of the judiciary as a tightly knit club that is more concerned with its own status than it is with rule of law in a truly meaningful sense--which should exclude patent attempts to game the system for blatantly politicial purposes. It's not a good look for a branch of government that talks about doing justice. Hopefully Henderson's closing question to Wall is an indication that these issues concern her, as well. Does Henderson get it, that the best way to preserve the rule of law and to see justice done, as well as to preserve the proper roles of each branch of government, is to allow the DoJ to "self correct" (her words) when there is no longer a conflict between government and the accused?
That answer to that question could be crucial to a normal electoral process and even the future of our constitutional order. Allowing the prosecutorial persecution of a disfavored political opponent was bad enough. Allowing a judge to step in and enforce a continuation of that injustice when the prosecution seeks to right the wrong is IMO far more destructive for the long term.