Justice Department is seeking to dismiss case against Michael Flynn

Clear to me too.

Gaslighting, indeed.

Iā€™m not 100% sure about whether he could have opted for the PDā€™s office. You might be right about that.

But he certainly could have hired a lawyer who charged $100 an hour, rather than hiring a $1000 an hour team from Covington.

Nearly everything I have posted in this thread, including the posts you chose to respond to are in regard to the ā€œsob storyā€ being perpetuated regarding Flynn being ā€œthreatenedā€ with bankruptcy by legal bills.

What happened to the $600K he got from Turkey? He could have used that to pay his lawyers.

1 Like

You do realize you have to prove to the court your destitute and canā€™t afford any lawyer for a public defender right? No way in hell he qualified for a PD in his case.

Yes they do. They have to show the court they can not afford any attorney feeā€™s, and then one is appointed for them.

Shed a tear? Hell, your defending the FBIā€™s actions railroading this guy.

3 Likes

At this point, what difference does it make?

2 Likes

I hope he kept it.

Too bad they couldnā€™t squeeze more out of him?

And if I were Judge Sullivan I would be pissed as hell.

Seemā€™s the prosecution didnā€™t turn over evidence that might lead one to beleive he was innocent to the defence. Then they didnā€™t turn it over to the judge when he asked for all evidence for sentencing. The stuff coming out now SHOULD have been turned over before the plea negotiations.

Since February 2018, Van Grack ā€“ who now heads the DOJā€™s Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) unit ā€“ has been obligated to comply with D.C. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivanā€™s standing order in the Flynn case to produce all evidence in the governmentā€™s possession ā€œthat is favorable to defendant and material either to defendantā€™s guilt or punishment.ā€

The order also requires the government to submit favorable defense evidence to the court, including possible ā€œimpeachment evidenceā€ that could undermine witnesses, even if the government believes the evidence ā€œnot to be material.ā€ (Sullivan still has the ultimate authority over what to do with Flynnā€™s case, even after the DOJ withdrawal, given that a guilty plea has been entered.)

In any other court . . . . if this were to happen ā€“ the charges would be dismissed with prejedice and could not be refiled and possibly have the prosocuting attorney sanctioned by the court. Heā€™ll be lucky if he has a job and ever be hired as a lawyer after this.

No. I reject the premise that he was ā€œrailroadedā€ entirely.

Itā€™s comical. If Flynn is the standard of ā€œrailroadingā€, half the inmates in this country were ā€œrailroadedā€.

And wrong.

I reject your rejection. He was railroaded. The train to Trumpville.

3fl53i

Every word of this post is nonsense. In any other court, Flynn would have been sentenced two years ago.

Sullivan is the judge most likely to give deference to Brady claims - and he threw out every claim Powell submitted. Nothing in these new releases was subject to Brady disclosure.

Oh my young neophyte, you are ignoring two things:

  1. Process was violated in a process crime.
  2. The FBI did it and that matters. Confidence in our justice system and all that. Lady justice has politics all up in that blindfolded eye.

Iā€™m sure this made sense to you when you wrote itā€¦

Barr got his lackey to try to drop the charges.

Cases get thrown out every day after sentancing and on appeal because paperwork and stuff was not turned over as the law demands.

I still think this judge is going to be pissed. They had this information all along. The judge told them to turn anything like this over to him before sentencing so he could determine what the sentence would be.

As I said, this judge should be pissed as hell, the prosocuting attorney (now stepping down from this case AND OTHERS) knows heā€™s toast. If others hid the information from him he should roll on them faster than Hillary deleting a hard drive.

None of the information released by Barrā€™s pawns was ā€œexculpatoryā€.

Weā€™ll see what Sullivan says, but heā€™s already ruled on all of this, and nothing released contradicts his previous rulings.

:rofl::+1::+1::+1::+1:

Sullivan is going to be irate. But it wonā€™t be at who you think it should be.