Arguing Separation of Power, Carr Joins Coalition Supporting Dismissal of Case Against Gen. Flynn

Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr is getting vocal about the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case against General Michael Flynn.

Carr joined a coalition with 14 other attorneys general from around the country. The coalition collectively filed a brief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The coalition contends that the court should have no say in the federal government’s decision not to prosecute. ““Simply put,” the brief reads, “the decision not to pursue a criminal conviction is vested in the executive branch alone — and neither the legislature nor the judiciary has any role in the executive’s making of that decision.”

From the press release from Carr’s office on Tuesday:

“Our founding fathers designed a system of government knowing that any one branch of government is capable of over-stepping their bounds,” said Attorney General Chris Carr. “We have checks and balances for this reason. As state attorneys general, it is our duty as defenders of the Constitution to voice our concerns when federal overreach occurs.” 

After the federal government decided not to pursue criminal charges against Gen. Flynn, the U.S. District Court for D.C. implied that it may order the prosecution to continue through a court-appointed prosecutor. The district court additionally stated that it would invite other individuals and organizations to file amicus briefs addressing whether the court should grant the government’s motion to dismiss.

Instead, coalition members seek for the district court to grant the motion “without commentary on the decision to charge or not to charge, because such punditry disrobes the judiciary of its cloak of impartiality.”

According to the brief, “the Court’s desire to assume the role of a prosecutor evinces a total lack of regard for the role that the separation of powers plays in our system. Before the federal government may deprive a citizen of his freedom, it must navigate a number of hurdles. It must find a law that the citizen violated, a prosecutor willing to press charges, a jury of other citizens willing to convict, and a court to uphold the legality of the prosecution. In other words, the judiciary is supposed to function as a constitutional check on deprivations of liberty — it is not supposed to remove constitutional checks on deprivations of liberty. But that is exactly what the Court would do by second-guessing the prosecutors’ decision not to continue pursuing this case.”

Ohio led this brief. Georgia joined along with attorneys general in Alabama; Alaska; Arkansas; Florida; Indiana; Louisiana; Mississippi; Missouri; Oklahoma; South Carolina; Texas; Utah; and West Virginia.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
1 month ago

I would think an AG of any state would have more to do than carry the water for any administration, particularly involving someone who plead guilty, twice, in open court.

But then I remember it’s an election year and Carr does what Kemp wants and Kemp does what Barr wants and Barr does what Trump wants because it’s an election year and besides, he can.

Dave Bearse
Dave Bearse
1 month ago
Reply to  xdog

You’d be thinking wrong. For starters, Carr wouldn’t be AG without a crony appointment.

New rule. Lying to the FBI is only a crime only when it’s done by a Dem.

alpha male
alpha male
1 month ago

Kudos to AG Carr for standing up for the rule of law. This reminds me of an exchange I had here with a formerly prodigious leftist poster maybe a couple of years ago. I told said poster that Flynn’s guilty plea would probably eventually be thrown out. Said poster disagreed vehemently stating that would be virtually unheard of. I retorted that in the case of prosecutorial misconduct it could indeed happen. And this was a case of egregious prosecutorial misconduct. And I am no Clarence Darrow or Perry Mason, but I do know where to go to get real news… Read more »

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x