Gen. Mike Flynn, at one time the President's National Security Advisor, pleaded guilty to making false statements to an FBI agent who interviewed him shortly after the President took office. The charge was brought by the Office of Special Counsel and Robert Mueller. Recently, the Justice Department moved to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds that the materiality of Flynn's statements was in doubt, and that the case being developed fell short of the standards the Justice Department historically follows in dealing with defendants and potential defendants. US District Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is handling the case, has said he will hold a hearing on whether to grant the motion to dismiss, and -- since both parties support the motion -- has appointed an amicus, former federal judge John Gleeson, to present the case against granting it.

Were the charges against Flynn justified? Was Flynn dealt with fairly and according to law as the case proceeded? Is the Department correct in moving to dismiss notwithstanding Flynn's guilty plea and previous decision not to withdraw the plea? How much discretion does Judge Sullivan have in considering the government's motion to dismiss, and what principles should guide the exercise of that discretion? What is the propriety of appointing an amicus in district court when the parties themselves agree on the proper disposition?

Join our panel of experts who will discuss these questions.

Featuring:
-- John G. Malcolm, Vice President, Institute for Constitutional Government, Director of the Meese Center for Legal & Judicial Studies and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
-- Prof. William G. Otis, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University, and former Special White House Counsel for President George H. W. Bush
-- Prof. John C. Yoo, Emanuel S. Heller Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law