In legal notes sent to court Monday and obtained by CNN, the former prosecutors essentially set out what legal matters they believe Judge Emmet Sullivan must dismiss the dismissal request and convict Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
They compared the current situation at the Department of Justice with Watergate, the scandal and the criminal investigation that led to the departure of President Richard Nixon.
The group, which called themselves friends of the court or "amici" in legal parlance, "experienced" & # 39; Saturday Night Massacre & # 39 ;, where an honorable state attorney and an honorable prosecutor dismissed or were dismissed instead of following the instructions of a self-interested president to frustrate the work of an independent prosecutor, "they wrote to the judge.
The parallels and contrasts between the Watergate case and the current situation before this Court show that Amici has a direct and substantial interest in the proper disposition of the pending Proposal led by the sitting Attorney General to protect a close ally of the President. "
In addition, the former prosecutors say they offer a "unique perspective on the need for independent scrutiny and oversight to ensure that decisive decisions on prosecution by senior government officials are taken in the public interest, viewed as legitimate and not later reversed by political intervention. "
The filing seems to have at least contributed to an announcement from Sullivan that essentially keeps the case alive. On Tuesday, the judge announced that he would consider third-party legal arguments, including those with "unique information or perspective," before deciding what to do in Flyn's case.
The Watergate alumni's full legal argument is not yet available, and it is not yet known how many groups or individuals will try to become part of the Flynn lawsuit.
The former prosecutors are: Nick Akerman, Richard Ben-Veniste, Richard J. Davis, Carl B. Feldbaum, George T. Frampton, Jr., Kenneth S. Geller, Gerald Goldman, Stephen E. Haberfeld, Henry L. Hecht, Paul R. Hoeber, Philip Allen Lacovara, Paul R. Michel, Robert L. Palmer, Frank Tuerkheimer, Jill Wine-Banks, and Roger Witten.
It's been less than a week since the Justice Department said they wanted to drop Flyn's indictment. The department claimed Flynn should not have been investigated, and thus not interviewed in the White House in January 2017, where he lied to the FBI about his communications with Russia.
The drums of former federal prosecutors have grown since last Thursday.
"If there was ever a case in which the public interest advised the court to take a long, hard look at the government's explanation and evidence, this is it," the former employees, organized by Protect Democracy, a nonprofit responsible group, wrote in a statement published on the Medium website.
The group will try to file a card in the Flynn case, according to Ben Berwick, a lawyer in Protect Democracy, to CNN.
Flyn's legal team pushed back Sullivan's announcement almost immediately, writing that the judge should not allow a third party to intervene and urge the judge to dismiss Flyn's case immediately. The filing from Flyn's defense attorneys acknowledged that the former Watergate prosecutors had sought to be heard in the case.
"There are countless people – including former prosecutors on both sides of the parties – who want to express their views, but there are many reasons why there is no provision for outsiders to join a criminal case in this court," Flyns said defense attorneys wrote on Tuesday. "Of course, the former prosecutors are all free to submit opinions to various media – as many have already done – but this court is not a forum for their alleged special interest."
They also claimed that Sullivan had no choice but to dismiss the case.
"This justice has already consumed three or more years of the life of an innocent man – and his entire family. No further delay should be tolerated or additional expenses for him and his defense," they added.