Clarice Feldman seems to think the prosecutor can “dismiss” a case for which there has already been a conviction. Judge Sullivan’s request is for exculpatory information he wants to consider before sentencing. In this case, that might be material about Flynn’s long, exemplary career, the relative nothingness of the transgression, or it could be whether he cooperated, i.e., ratted out others to the Inquisition, as promised?”
Among the many things that bug me is Item 2 of the Statement of Offense attached to Flynn’s plea, wherein the Mueller group claims Flynn’s misstatements “impeded or otherwise had a material impact on the [...investigation of Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election]”. That is a howling lie. Flynn’s denials of making certain statements to the Russian Amb. during the transition, about subjects that had nothing to do with the election, had no impact whatsoever on the FBI’s investigation of Russian interference in the election. The FBI possessed transcripts of Flynn’s calls before asking Flynn the questions. It was irrelevant to the “election interference investigation” whether Flynn admitted or denied these calls. The Special Prosecutor’s justification to the court for why the whole case mattered, was utterly false — it didn’t matter one whit. An admission of that lie is the “exculpatory” information Mueller should turn over — but of course will not.
Judge Sullivan's DEMAND for all the evidence has nothing to do with Flynn's sentencing. Sullivan is going to vacate the conviction. This is about holding Mueller accountable and ripping Mueller a new asshole. Mueller may try to send one of his flunkies to the hearing, but I suspect Judge Sullivan is going to insist that Mueller show up himself for the ass-chewing.
IANAL but couldn't the prosecution move to have the guilty plea vacated?
Judge Sullivan’s request is for exculpatory information he wants to consider before sentencing.
Would that not include revealing any misconduct on the part of the prosecutors?