Unsupported in this particular post, covered numerous times previously.
Here are a few:
1) Powell cited the Steven’s case as the principal support for her initial arguments. Steven’s was 100% irrelevant to her argument (except for stating the grand principle).
2) Powell’s arguments were political, not legal. She did not engage in the sort of Brady analysis you find in Sullivan’s decision.
3) Powell in effect ignored the significance of the guilty pleas, which are the central legal fact of the case, regardless of whose side you are on.
4) Powell completely omitted the question of ineffective assistance of counsel when she first started out, even though that question was a central element, a prerequisite, of the legal argument she had to make.
5) Powell did NOT want to move to vacate the guilty pleas. She stated so many times. And there was good reason for not doing so. But she publicly trashed the government many times, a needlessly antagonistic and completely stupid thing for a lawyer to do, regardless of whether the trashing was deserved. When she did that, I predicted that she would pay a price, and sure enough, the government decided to abandon their position regarding sentencing, which had been favorable to Flynn.
6) As a result of the government’s change of position on sentencing, Powell was legally REQUIRED to make a motion to withdraw the plea, something she did NOT want to do. So, she blundered her way into it.
7) As a result of making the legally required motion to withdraw the plea Powell did NOT want to make, Flynn submitted a declaration where he arguably (almost certainly) confessed to committing perjury. IOW Powell was responsible for Flynn probably committing serious crimes.
8) In addition to which, Flynn’s statement, when analyzed on a detail by detail basis, makes him look like a confused, frightened little lamb. Powell did that.
9) Similarly, Powell blundered her way into makinh hearing necessary, where Flynn would be put in further peril because for various reasons, and where Covington would likely crush Powell’s argument regarding ineffective assistance. Barr got Powell out of that jam, maybe, although Sullivan could still hold hearings.
10) BTW, Powell persistently invited the trashing of Sullivan. Look at this site. Again, this is just a stupid thing for a lawyer to do. Personally, I think Sullivan has been very fair and patient. But maybe he deserves the trashing. Regardless, it is pure stupidity to invite people to disrespect a judge, especially when you are in front of him.
11) A lawyer is supposed to represent the best interests of her client, not the best interests of her books and public appearances. In this respect, there is zero chance she could have told Flynn he would have been better off if he adopted her legal strategy, and in fact her strategy has been ineffective. Flynn would have been better off where he was when she stepped in. Powell is very lucky Barr let her off the hook.
There is more, but these are a few off the top of my head.
WEIRD point of view.
I see it differently.
I am not a lawyer, but I think I am not too bad at reading people.
Powell is no fool. I suspect that she saw him dearly on as a prejudiced judge and figured that since he would get Flynn regardless of her best efforts, Flynn would end up appealing.
Therefore baiting Sullivan and causing him to expose his intent to convict Flynn in order to make an appeal likely to succeed.
Sullivan needs to get out more.