Flynn prosecutor Brandon Van Grack should be in trouble.
- How Van Grack's misrepresentations about the Flynn investigation and evidence led Judge Sullivan to issue an inaccurate opinion.
- Why a show-cause hearing is appropriate.
Thread.
Recall -
- Van Grack told Judge Sullivan that the Flynn “lies” "impeded" and "had a material impact on" the Trump/Russia investigation.
- Van Grack also told Judge Sullivan that he had provided all Brady evidence – and all “information that could reasonably be construed as favorable and material to sentencing.”
- Van Grack to Judge Sullivan:
- The govt has provided all Brady Evidence.
- The government has not "suppressed evidence."
[All this turned out to be false.]
Based on these misrepresentations -
Judge Sullivan concluded that the Flynn interview was based on Trump/Russia (it wasn't) and thus his "lies" were material.
New evidence shows Sullivan's conclusion was incorrect.
Judge Sullivan concluded that the Flynn interview was based on Trump/Russia (it wasn't) and thus his "lies" were material.
New evidence shows Sullivan's conclusion was incorrect.
Relying on Van Grack’s claims -
Judge Sullivan wrongly held that FBI and DOJ communications “are not favorable and material to sentencing.”
New evidence shows that the FBI/DOJ conspired to use the Logan Act against Flynn.
The evidence is material and favorable.
Judge Sullivan also wrongly found – based on promises from Van Grack – that the govt had already provided Flynn with favorable/material info on "pre-interview discussions"
- This was not the case - as discovered when the govt provided the Strzok messages and Priestap notes.
- Van Grack influences Sullivan into another faulty conclusion.
Sullivan: Flynn’s argument that his statements “were not related to the investigation into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the election – is unavailing.”
Compare to DOJ motion to dismiss.
Sullivan: “Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador were relevant to the FBI’s [Russian interference] inquiry.”
- Again, evidence now shows this to be false – it was a Logan Act inquiry led by FBI leadership.
Sullivan: The evidence proves that this was not a perjury trap.
- New evidence: FBI discussions of a perjury trap.
AG Barr explains in greater detail:
- They kept the Flynn investigation open "for the express purpose of trying to catch, lay a perjury trap for General Flynn."
HT @JohnWHuber
Van Grack's misrepresentations are serious and should be dealt with.
Not only violate Sullivan's Brady order and deny Flynn what was due...
But he induced Judge Sullivan to reach conclusions now contradicted by the evidence.
Not only violate Sullivan's Brady order and deny Flynn what was due...
But he induced Judge Sullivan to reach conclusions now contradicted by the evidence.
In 2017, Judge Sullivan wrote in the WSJ that "Judges have a responsibility to take action against unethical prosecutors."
We hope this remains to be true.
/end
We hope this remains to be true.
/end
