Michael Flynn, a former National Security Advisor, was charged with lying to the FBI about his contact with a Russian ambassador during the 2016 election campaign. Flynn pleaded guilty to this charge but later withdrew his plea, claiming that he was coerced by the FBI. The government then moved to dismiss the case, but the judge overseeing the case, Judge Emmet Sullivan, refused to dismiss it and instead appointed a retired judge to argue against the government’s motion.
Now, the government is arguing that the case should be heard in D.C. because that is where the events in question took place. The government’s motion states that “the charged offense occurred in Washington, D.C., and the investigation, prosecution, and defense of the case have taken place in Washington, D.C.” In addition, the motion argues that D.C. is a more convenient location for the parties involved and that it would be easier for witnesses to testify in D.C. than in Florida.
However, there are some who believe that the government’s true motivation for changing the venue is to get a more favorable judge. Judge Sullivan has been a thorn in the government’s side throughout this case, and some believe that the government is hoping to get a judge in D.C. who will be more sympathetic to their arguments.
So, what are the implications of this decision? If the venue is changed to D.C., it could make it easier for the government to get the case dismissed. As mentioned earlier, Judge Sullivan has been reluctant to dismiss the case, but a new judge in D.C. may not be as hesitant. On the other hand, if the case remains in Florida, it could make it more difficult for the government to get the case dismissed, as Judge Sullivan has already made it clear that he is not inclined to dismiss the case. For more information, Lars speaks with Tracy Beanz the Editor of Uncover DC.