Posted on 02/16/2018 6:41:19 AM PST by billorites
Observers are buzzing about a series of events in the last 60 days in the case of Michael Flynn, the Trump national security adviser who on Dec. 1 pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI in the Trump-Russia investigation. The new developments might add up to very little or they might be significant. In any event, they are raising eyebrows.
First, there is some mystery surrounding the removal of Judge Rudolph Contreras from the case. Just days after accepting Flynn's guilty plea, Contreras was taken off the case by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. No reason was given.
Of potentially more interest is Contreras' replacement, Judge Emmet Sullivan. Sullivan is well known in legal circles for having been the judge in the case of Ted Stevens, the Republican senator from Alaska who was prosecuted for corruption by the George W. Bush Justice Department. Stevens was convicted in October 2008, causing him to lose his bid for re-election the next month. But it later came to light that the Justice Department had improperly withheld exculpatory evidence. In April 2009, Eric Holder, the Obama attorney general who inherited the mess, dropped the case.
What Flynn watchers are noting today is that when all that happened back in 2009, Sullivan ripped into the Stevens prosecutors with an anger rarely seen on the bench. Sullivan was furious that the federal government had repeatedly withheld evidence from the Stevens defense and has been known ever since as a judge who is a stickler for making sure defendants are allowed access to all the evidence they are entitled to.
On Dec. 12, after just a few days on the Flynn case, Sullivan, acting on his own, ordered the office of special counsel Robert Mueller "to produce to [Flynn] in a timely manner — including during plea negotiations — any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant's guilt or punishment."
Sullivan also ordered Mueller "to produce all discoverable evidence in a readily usable form." And he declared that "if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court for in camera review." In other words, Sullivan declared that he, not Mueller, would be the judge of what evidence should be produced.
While the move could be simply standard procedure for Sullivan, it was nevertheless notable because Flynn had already pleaded guilty, and, as part of that guilty plea, agreed to "forgo the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of [Flynn's] guilty plea."
"It certainly appears that Sullivan's order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt," wrote National Review's Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor.
On Jan. 31, the two sides in the case agreed to delay sentencing for Flynn until at least May. Some observers saw that as an entirely routine development in a case in which the defendant is cooperating with prosecutors on an open matter. On the other hand, in the Flynn case, the delay took place in the context of Sullivan's evidence order, and there is no way for the public to know whether that played a role in the decision.
Fast forward to Wednesday. Prosecutors and the defense submitted to Sullivan a proposed order limiting the use of any new evidence produced by the government. The evidence can be used by Flynn's defense "solely in connection with the defense of this case, and for no other purpose, and in connection with no other proceeding." The proposed order, awaiting Sullivan's approval, also set out rules for handling "sensitive" materials.
That's where things stand now. The latest filings indicate both sides are taking Sullivan's order seriously, which is certainly a good idea, given Sullivan's history. But is there actually not-yet-produced evidence that might help Flynn? If so, would it have any effect on the case in which Flynn has already pleaded guilty? And would it have any effect on the larger Trump-Russia investigation? There are no answers right now, but United States v. Michael Flynn remains a case to watch.
Judge Sullivan appointed a special prosecutor in the Stevens case to investigate the DOJ abuses. Can he do likewise now? Obviously Sessions has no intention of reigning in the felons in HIS DOJ.
Below is another excellent article re the probable mistrial of General Flynn:
General Flynn Should WITHDRAW His Guilty Plea. His New Judge Is A Government Misconduct Expert
Daily Caller ^ | February 16, 2018 | Sidney Powell
Posted on 2/16/2018, 6:37:05 AM by billorites
Extraordinary manipulation by powerful people led to the creation of Robert Mueller’s continuing investigation and prosecution of General Michael Flynn. Notably, the recent postponement of General Flynn’s sentencing provides an opportunity for more evidence to be revealed that will provide massive ammunition for a motion to withdraw Flynn’s guilty plea and dismiss the charges against him.
It was Judge Rudolph Contreras who accepted General Flynn’s guilty plea, but he suddenly was recused from the case. The likely reason is that Judge Contreras served on the special court that allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigation to surveil the Trump campaign based on the dubious FISA application. Judge Contreras may have approved one of those four warrants.
The judge assigned to Flynn’s case now is Emmet G. Sullivan. Judge Sullivan immediately issued what is called a “Brady” order requiring Mueller to provide Flynn all information that is favorable to the defense whether with respect to guilt or punishment. Just today, Mueller’s team filed an agreed motion to provide discovery to General Flynn under a protective order so that it can be reviewed by counsel but not disclosed otherwise.
This development is huge. Prosecutors almost never provide this kind of information to a defendant before he enters a plea — much less after he has done so. This is one of myriad problems in our justice system. As Judge Jed Rakoff wrote several years ago, people who are innocent enter guilty pleas every day. They simply can no longer withstand the unimaginable stress of a criminal investigation. They and their families suffer sheer exhaustion in every form — financial, physical, mental, and emotional. Add in a little prosecutorial duress — like the threat of indicting your son — and, presto, there’s a guilty plea.
Judge Sullivan is the perfect judge to decide General Flynn’s motion. The judicial hero of my book, Emmet Sullivan held federal prosecutors in contempt for failing to disclose evidence, dismissed the corrupted prosecution of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens and appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the Department of Justice.
That independent counsel, Henry Schuelke, issued a scathing report finding systematic, intentional and pervasive misconduct in the Department of (In)Justice. He identified the prosecution’s deliberate concealment of evidence favorable to the defense. That is why Judge Sullivan both issues such Brady orders in each of his cases and encourages every other judge in the country to do the same.
Emmet G. Sullivan is one judge who is ready, willing and able to hold Mr. Mueller accountable to the law and who has the wherewithal to dismiss the case against General Flynn — for egregious government misconduct — if Mueller doesn’t move to dismiss it himself.
Judge Sullivan’s experience can only help General Flynn as more evidence appears every day to reveal that Flynn should not have been prosecuted. James Comey testified to Congress that the agents who interviewed Flynn — including the hopelessly compromised Peter Strzok — thought Flynn was telling the truth. The entire FISA warrant application becomes more problematic by the day.
Within the next six weeks, we will probably have the bombshell report of Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice. He is the one who discovered the Strzok-Page emails, and he has been investigating the FBI and DOJ in their Clinton cover-up for the last year.
Since Flynn entered his guilty plea, we’ve learned that information Mr. Comey leaked deliberately to “trigger” Robert Mueller’s entire investigation was classified. Also, FBI agents Peter Strzok, Lisa Page and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were working on an “insurance policy” to protect the country against a Trump presidency. It seems plausible that this “insurance policy” included the appointment of a special prosecutor.
Indeed, the bases for throwing out everything Robert Mueller has touched grow exponentially as more truth finds sunlight.
Watching guilty pleas evaporate is nothing new for Mr. Mueller’s favored lieutenant Andrew Weissmann. Along with his Enron Task Force comrade Leslie Caldwell, Weissmann terrorized Arthur Andersen partner David Duncan into pleading guilty. (RELATED: Meet The Very Shady Prosecutor Robert Mueller Has Hired For The Russia Investigation)
Weissmann and Caldwell made Duncan testify at length against Arthur Andersen when they destroyed the company and 85,000 jobs only to be reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court three years later. Turns out, the “crime” they “convinced” Mr. Duncan to plead guilty to was not a crime at all. The court allowed Duncan to withdraw his plea. And, that was not the only Weissmann-induced plea to be withdrawn either. Just ask Christopher Calger.
Judge Sullivan is the country’s premiere jurist experienced in the abuses of our Department of Justice. He knows a cover-up when he sees one. Until the Department is cleaned out with Clorox and firehoses, along with its “friends” at the FBI, Judge Sullivan is the best person to confront the egregious government misconduct that has led to and been perpetrated by the Mueller-Weissmann “investigation” and to right the injustices that have arisen from it. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
Sidney Powell, former federal prosecutor and veteran of 500 federal appeals, is the author of LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. She is a Senior Fellow of the London Center for Policy Research and Senior Policy Advisor for America First.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3632567/posts
They bankrupt people with huge legal costs. Then get them to plead guilty to some small infraction or face financial ruin.
I hope Sullivan does the right thing and tosses this case.
“The evidence can be used by Flynn’s defense “solely in connection with the defense of this case, and for no other purpose, and in connection with no other proceeding.”
I am not a lawyer, but does that mean that Flynn can’t use the evidence to sue Mueller for withholding evidence favorable to Flynn?
will the unracted fisa application be part of the evidence submitted to judge sullivan??
Something suggests the limited use of evidence for Flynn, implies that it might also be of benefit in prosecuting the fbi
“Within the next six weeks, we will probably have the bombshell report of Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice.”
Make no mistake that this plays a major role in why idiot Comey’s book is being completed and released so quickly - to try and get ahead of this.
Well, Obama-Hillary’s FBI-DOJ is TRYING to do everything they can think of to limit the release and use and publicity (and anything else that they can think of) of any “new evidence” by writing this agreement with Flynn’s defense lawyers.
Re-read the “agreement” - Mueller’s DOJ insiders/swampers against Flynn are trying to make sure that the “new evidence” that they know that they must release to FLynn CANNOT be used “in any other case”. Also, they are trying to prevent Flynn’s lawyers (Flynn himself!) from being able to release it publically.
If they succeed in suppressing the release to anybody else, then - when it is leaked BY Mueller/the DOJ - they (the DOJ insiders) re-prosecute Flynn for “release of classified information/breaking his agreement/being a bad person. The distraction charges (”of being a bad person anyway”) then become Hillary’s media’s talking points. Not the actual information itself.
Which is their plan anyway. Talk against the information, not what the information means or what it actually is.
1. In December the new judge Sullivan told Mueller to present exonerated evidence if there was any to Flynn and his legal counsel
2. In January then Mueller asked for a stay of sentencing Flynn, pushing it to May
3. In February, Mueller asked that the evidence he turned over to Flynn legal counsel be sealed
4. We still don’t know about why Judge Contreras was removed from the Flynn case, after he accepted Flynn’s guilty plea (many suspect he was on the FISA court when Carter Page application for warrant came through)
All of this put together spells that Mueller will have to drop the case Or the Judge will vacate the plea deal
The government can't launder a fact out of existence by presenting it in one case.
Flynn has a good argument that whatever lie he told the FBI is not material to the investigation of any crime. A lie has to be material to be criminal. If Flynn had baked beans for breakfast, and told the FBI he didn't, the lie is not material unless the investigation had something to do with baked beans.
No plea deal even needed. Just drop the case after a few years, before it reaches the ultimate conclusion. Punishment by process. You can beat the rap, but you can;t beat the ride - perpetrated by prosecutors. It is standard practice. Unethical, but prosecutors have close to absolute immunity, and prosecutors (and judges) are assholes with a grudge.
Sidney Powell, former federal prosecutor and veteran of 500 federal appeals, is the author of LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice. She is a Senior Fellow of the London Center for Policy Research and Senior Policy Advisor for America First.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
question for ya grampa: is there a character in the current hildabeast/DNC/Steele/McCain dossier drama that also lists “London Center for Policy Research”???
george papadopoulos, maybe????
The prosecution is asking to be allowed to hide information that may be exculpatory in any other proceedings?
Seems a little underhanded to me.
Constitutional protections are extended to everyone on earth - citizen or non-citizen - except white males. Proceed accordingly.
“Within the next six weeks, we will probably have the bombshell report of Michael Horowitz, the Inspector General for the Department of Justice.”
Since the end of last year when the evidence of the FBI acting as a criminal unit of our government not an investigative unit, started leaking out.
Lawyers for people convicted of crimes by the FBI with probable fake data are standing by to have those cases reversed due to FBI misbehavior in their clients’s cases.
This will go back to Mueller’s rule over a decade ago and will include any case where Comey was in charge.
Sharyl Attkisson’s oped last month below, warned us about this coming flood of reversals in previous cases where the FBI played games with their data to get convictions.
As walls close in on FBI, the bureau lashes out at its antagonists
BY SHARYL ATTKISSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/25/18 01:50 PM EST 2,502
What happens when federal agencies accused of possible wrongdoing also control the alleged evidence against them? What happens when they’re the ones in charge of who inside their agencies — or connected to them — ultimately gets investigated and possibly charged?
Those questions are moving to the forefront as the facts play out in the investigations into our intelligence agencies’ surveillance activities.
There are two overarching issues.
First, there’s the alleged improper use of politically funded opposition research to justify secret warrants to spy on U.S. citizens for political purposes.
Second, if corruption is ultimately identified at high levels in our intel agencies, it would necessitate a re-examination of every case and issue the officials touched over the past decade — or two — under administrations of both parties.
This is why I think the concerns transcend typical party politics.
It touches everybody. It’s potentially monumental.
Excerpted, for full oped go to the link below:
,
“The government can’t launder a fact out of existence...”
That is what they did when presenting the dossier as evidence in the the FISA warrants.
Flynn has a good argument that whatever lie he told the FBI is not material to the investigation of any crime. A lie has to be material to be criminal. If Flynn had baked beans for breakfast, and told the FBI he didn't, the lie is not material unless the investigation had something to do with baked beans.
Ding ding ding!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.