Posted on 02/19/2018 9:52:19 AM PST by MaxistheBest
Did Robert Mueller’s office withhold other evidence in Michael Flynn’s prosecution, either from the FISA court or from Flynn’s attorneys? There is reason to believe so. --------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
Just a week ago, and thus before Sullivan quietly directed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team to provide Flynn’s attorneys “any exculpatory evidence,” Washington Examiner columnist Byron York detailed the oddities of Flynn’s case. The next day, former assistant U.S. attorney and National Review contributing editor Andrew McCarthy connected more dots. Together these articles provide the backdrop necessary to understand the significance of Sullivan’s order on Friday. -----------------------
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing “the government to produce to defendant 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’s standing order further directed the government, if it “has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Why Bombshells Are Likely Ahead
With a protective order in place, Flynn’s attorneys should start receiving the required disclosures from the special counsel’s office. There is reason to believe these will include some bombshells.------ Was other evidence withheld, either from the FISA court or from Flynn’s attorneys in negotiating a plea? Again, there is reason to believe so, given the players involved and the facts already uncovered
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...
Something is not right over there....I have not gone to their comments section in a while, but those leftist posters seem professional.
I’m not sure what type of exculpatory evidence was withheld, since judge Sullivan always does this, but the entire premise of Flynn being targeted for an interview from Strzok was an obvious set up.
The FBI, Brennon, Hellery’s henchmen, or Obummer had the WP create a false narrative that an incoming national sec advisor discussing policy with an ambassador during a transition, with security clearance, was illegal. And the Strzok interview of Flynn was invoked as a result of the fake Wash Post piece. All two weeks after McCabe is overheard saying, “first we fuck Flynn, and then we fuck Trump”. That alone is reason to throw out the case. As far as McCabe altering a 302, I’m pretty sure that if that turns out to be the case, McCabe would have to do hard time.
Also, it appears that Judge Reuben Contreras was appointed to the FISA court in May 2016 specifically to be a conduit to spy on the Trump team. I would gamble that he was the one who approved all of the warrants, after another DC FISA judge turned one down that same month, May 2016...
How on earth Contreras ended up being the judge assigned to Flynn is to blatant of a conflict to simply ignore. That was a fix too, and there was likely an incriminating paper or text trail that demonstrates how Contreras was chosen to preside the Flynn case before he was removed from it.
You can’t convict someone for lying about an aspect to a crime that not only was never committed, but was intentionally made to appear to be a crime by the investigators themselves!
I think that if Flynn did not plead guilty, we wouldn’t have known about any of this. Flynn’s guilty plea exposed the entire sham to the world.
Emmet Sullivan is a hanging judge. He was on the Sen Ted Stevens case when the government prosecutors (who are now working for Mueller) hid witnesses, lied, and suborned perjury to frame an innocent US Senator and change the power in the Senate to the Democrats. (Deep State conspiracy that was real!) One FBI agent stood up to the surprise of everyone, by the name of Chad Joy, and told the world that the government was lying, and that he wanted whistle blower status. When Judge Emmet Sullivan was shown the evidence he blew his top, had the prosecutors stand in front of him for hours dressing them down and announced his own Special Counsel. A federal prosecutor subsequently committed suicide. This is detailed to perfection in Sidney’s Powell magnificent work..”Licensed to Lie” which shows an unconscionable level of corruption by the government, and an almost impossibility to discipline. I urge everyone to read it and to pass it to everyone they know.
Sullivan knows theirs tricks, and he can be Flynn’s avenging angel in this situation. I have no doubt that Sullivan will burn this whorehouse of a case to the ground. If he finds one shred of deception my Muellers prosecutors, it’s over. If he fines that FBI agents altered 302 reports, (to railroad Flynn), it’s over. He’s on to their lies.
yup. that’s part of it.
I believe Steele will be indicted. At this point, they have to indict him for a 1001 (lying) count at the very least. They will cut loose Steele in a heartbeat, but the rub is that there are several at the top of DOJ and the FBI who would have also committed 1001 (lying) and fraud upon on the court if they knew and did not tell. At the point they fired him for cause and went back to the FISA court for renewal there is probable cause to believe it.
The P/C for the FISA application (the big kind where you can monitor everyone) was that Page was a spy. Page has not been charged and we have not heard a single leak that he will be charged...... pretty confident he won’t be either. They monitored him with a rectal scope for a year! So we had an innocent target, dozens of other innocent targets who were monitored and unmasked, a memo by Obama that changed a long standing policy to increase the number of agencies with access increasing the likelihood of leaking, an affidavit based on bought and paid for opposition research and the same source leaking to the media, and they renewed the whole stinking mess for a year!
Sessions said yesterday that there are 27 leaking investigations going on at DOJ right now related to all of this. The OIG investigation is by all accounts going to be pretty damned bad - remember, McCabe met with Wray and left a day after Wray was told only part of what this shows. Flynn is now likely to walk with a Judge who may go after the prosecution team for Brady violations. Comey is obviously one of the 27 investigations into leaking. And.... there is still so much more to come.
Trump is winning, bigly. Once the bubble of protection is burst the Clintons and prior administration will be very worried. The MSM is going to look quite silly.
This place will be a lot of fun for a long time............
On Friday, Judge Emmet Sullivan issued an order in United States v. Flynn that, while widely unnoticed, reveals something fascinating: A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.
Thanks MaxistheBest.
OTOH, it takes a crook to catch a crook, sometimes.
That's not exactly true. Sullivan's order was dated 12/12/2017. The motion to delay the sentencing was filed within the last 3-4 weeks.
What precipitated the motion to delay the sentencing was the release of the HPSCI/Nunes memo (the motion was filed within 48 hours of that release), and the references to FISA warrant abuse and other malfeasance in the FBI.
Thank you.
I think he’s there already. Friday’s Russia stuff is just weak and frankly a waste of time.
This thing is gonna blow!
I think so too:Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .”Note that I tried to link to the article bolded, and somehow that link wouldn’t work. And even if it did, it’s to a PDF file with multiple articles in it, and the one referenced is not the first one in the PDF.The bottom line is that since the U.S. v. Stevens case, Judge Sullivan has had a bee in his bonnet about prosecutorial failure to disclose in accordance with ethical obligations. In the Stevens case he sicced a special prosecutor on the prosecutor who didn’t disclose. That initiative failed because of the lack of a Brady warning, and Judge Sullivan was royally POed about it. So he has issued the Brady warning in this case - and woe unto the prosecutor on the Mueller team who tries to pull a fast one!
I’m optimistic about the Flynn case putting Judge Sullivan’s nose under Mueller’s tent. He’s forcing much more disclosure than Mueller will be comfortable with, and he could end up doing what he did in the U.S. v. Stevens case: name a prosecutor to investigate the abuses of the prosecutor of the case.A consummation devoutly to be wished . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prayers going up that this will be so!!!
A consummation devoutly to be wished . . .
Sounds like what this Judge is trying to do.
"...information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Can we clone this judge?
The Brady Rule, named after Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), requires prosecutors to disclose materially exculpatory evidence in the government's possession to the defense. A "Brady material" or evidence the prosecutor is required to disclose under this rule includes any evidence favorable to the accused--evidence that goes towards negating a defendant's guilt, that would reduce a defendant's potential sentence, or evidence going to the credibility of a witness.
If the prosecution does not disclose material exculpatory evidence under this rule, and prejudice has ensued, the evidence will be suppressed. The evidence will be suppressed regardless of whether the prosecutor knew the evidence was in his or her possession, or whether or not the prosecutor intentionally or inadvertently withheld the evidence from the defense.
Further, in cases subsequent to Brady, the Supreme Court has eliminated the requirement for a defendant to have requested a favorable information, stating that the Prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose, that is triggered by the potential impact of favorable but undisclosed evidence See Kyles v. Whitley 514 U.S. 419, 434 (1955); United States. v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).
The defendant bears the burden to prove that the undisclosed evidence was both material and favorable. In other words, the defendant must prove that there is a “reasonable probability” that the outcome of the trial would have been different, had the evidence been disclosed by the prosecutor. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433 (1955). Bagles and Kyles Court further defined the “materiality” standard, outlining the four aspects of materiality. First, the “reasonable probability” of a different result is not a question of whether the defendant would more likely than not have received a different verdict with the evidence, but whether the government’s evidentiary suppression undermines the confidence in the outcome of the trial. The second aspect is that it is not a sufficiency of evidence test, and the defendant only has to show that the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine the confidence in the verdict. Third aspect is that there is no need for a harmless error review, because a Brady violation, by definition, could not be treated as a harmless error. Fourth and final aspect of materiality the Kyles Court stressed was that the suppressed evidence must be considered collective, not item by item, looking at the cumulative effect to determine whether a reasonable probability is reached. See Kyles, 514 U.S. at 433-438.
Have you ever heard the phrase, “case law”?
the Brady rule is the law.
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.