Counterintelligence investigations don’t need crimes. It’s not a law enforcement action.It's far from a dubious case. Flynn pled guilty after all.The kind of judicial review blocked by the lower appeals court.
What about dismissing the charges completely?
"The Government has urged (and some commentators have opined) that Judge Sullivan has little choice but to grant the motion. The conventional view holds that it is necessary to distinguish between two types of motions to dismiss: (1) those where dismissal would benefit the defendant, and (2) those where dismissal might give the Government a tactical advantage against the defendant, perhaps because prosecutors seek to dismiss the case and then file new charges. The Government argues that Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement applies exclusively to the latter category of motions to dismiss; where the dismissal accrues to the benefit of the defendant, judicial meddling is unwarranted and improper. In support, the Government relies in part on forty-year-old dicta in the sole Supreme Court case interpreting Rule 48(a). There, the Court stated that the “leave of court” language was added to Rule 48(a) “without explanation,” but “apparently” this verbiage had as its “principal object . . . to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment.”
But the Government’s position—and the Supreme Court language upon which it is based—is simply wrong. In fact, the “principal object” of Rule 48(a)’s “leave of court” requirement was not to protect the interests of individual defendants, but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases that would benefit powerful and well-connected defendants. In other words, it was drafted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. Flynn: Its purpose was to empower a district judge to halt a dismissal where the court suspects some impropriety has prompted prosecutors’ attempt to abandon a case."
Why Do Rule 48(a) Dismissals Require ‘Leave of Court’? | Stanford Law Review
On May 7, 2020, the Department of Justice asked District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the felony charge against President Trump's former Nawww.stanfordlawreview.org
but rather to guard against dubious dismissals of criminal cases
Dubious cases should be dismissed.
What was the crime they were investigating again?
Oh? What did he plead guilty to? Why was there a counterintelligence operation launched when there was no evidence of nefarious behavior on the part of the Trump campaign?
I could understand it if it were the shrilary campaign who actually DID collude with foreign spies.
But not Teump.
So why aren't you screaming about the shrilary and her provable crimes?