Federal judge suggests Flynn testify under oath to withdraw guilty plea

WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | 1/24/2020 | Jeff mordock

[bitt]

A federal judge Friday suggested that former national security advisor Michael Flynn may need to testify under oath in order to withdraw his guilty plea for lying to investigators in the Russia probe.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington wrote in a brief order that Flynn’s legal team should file paperwork on whether he should hold a hearing on to set aside his guilty plea.

Such a hearing would include “testimony from Mr. Flynn and other witnesses under oath, subject to cross-examination, to show any ‘fair and just reason’ for this court to grant his motion to withdraw.

The first set of briefs from Flynn’s legal team on the issue are due January 29, according to Judge Sullivan’s order.

Flynn is currently scheduled to be sentenced on February 27. He faces between zero and six months in jail, which is the range prosecutors are seeking. Flynn’s lawyers have urged Judge Sullivan to sentence him to probation.

[SkyPilot]

Why do folks post legal analysis when they do not have the faintest idea what they are talking about?

People post opinions about a lot of things that they are not experts on, nor have real world experience.

Medicine, finance, aviation, engineering, etc.

They are still allowed opinions.

To the "legal mind" - the prism to view things is sometimes (often?) through the rose colored glasses of the "law."

In practical, moral, human terms, people realize this entire fiasco stinks to high heaven.

1. General Flynn was head of the DIA during Obama's reign of terror, and knew of his (and all his henchmen's) illegal activities.

2. General Flynn campaigns for Trump, and publicly urges for Hillary's incarceration. 4. During the transition, Flynn is working with the FBI regarding security clearances for Trump members of the incoming administration.

5. The FBI randomly calls General Flynn, and requests another "routine" meeting. Two agents show up at his office, including the psychotic Peter Strzok.

6. The entire "meeting" is a ruse and trap.

7. McCabe, Flynn, and others in the FBI and DOJ conspire to "F_ck Flynn and then F_ck Trump", and the FBI Form 302s of the FBI interview with General Flynn are illegally altered.

8. The Clinton appointee judge knows all of this, but does nothing to come to Flynn's aid or to shut down rogue Federal prosecutors.

To people who have not gone to law school, they see something here that smacks of conspiracy, forgery, perjury, entrapment, destruction of government documents, and a whole slew of other sludge.

Yet, the vaunted heroes of the Department of Injustice and the Federal Bureau of Injustice get away with it, and General Flynn is bankrupt and facing prison.

Given the above, not too many people are enamored by the legal and "justice" cabal.

[EVO X]

I don’t think the FISA issue has anything to to do with this case. Flynn was picked up by U.S. surveillance of the Russian diplomat Kislyak, which didn’t require a warrant.

It might come in to play if Flynn is successful at withdrawing his guilty plea. They may not be able to pile on with new charges..

[Gratia]

TY for replying. I understand completely what you are saying. But it does not answer my question.

For instance, why post a legal analysis about the appellate implications of a legal action when you do not have the faintest idea how the appellate process works?

Why publish a “Brady” analysis when you do not have the faintest idea how Brady works?

Why do a legal analysis of guilty pleas and withdrawing guilty pleas when you do not have the faintest idea how guilty pleas work, or the standards applicable for withdrawing a guilty plea?

Why proclaim that some set of legal documents are brilliant and contain a winning argument when you do not have the faintest idea of what constitues a valid legal argument, as opposed (for example) to self-serving grand-standing?

The assumption that anyone can “do” legal analysis is puzzling to me.

[SkyPilot]

For instance, why post a legal analysis about the appellate implications of a legal action when you do not have the faintest idea how the appellate process works? Why publish a “Brady” analysis when you do not have the faintest idea how Brady works?

On that we agree. I don't think anyone should pass oneself off as an expert on these things if they are not. I don't know who did that, but they shouldn't. I certainly am not a legal expert.

[dila813]

As long as it isn’t to make you commit perjury that is, you can’t do this in order to suborn perjury.

It is very difficult to prove that is what they did, because you have to show the prosecutor knew that what they were asking you to do wasn’t something that reflected in the facts they were aware of.

That’s what the judge is going to be looking for, show me something that proves that the prosecutor knew this was false.

[RideForever]

The assumption that anyone can “do” legal analysis is puzzling to me.

---

IANAL - I am not a lawyer. But I defended my home in court aggressively enough that several attorneys followed me out of the courtroom after a hearing to get my advice on a point I made the judge consider. I found the laws to be written in fairly understandable language (in California). I also wrote computer programs for a living, so complex logic was constantly being exercised in my mind. It’s not for everyone. The information I missed most was the connections among the judges who give seminars to members of the BAR(risters) and share some personal bits of information.

So what I look for is references to statutes or cases in any legal ‘opinions’ found here, and generally discard those that are missing actual facts.

[Valpal1]

That’s actually evidence of a perjury trap. They didn’t need to interview him about the content of that conversation since they had the surveillance, so what was the real purpose of the interview?

Fishing expedition.

[Fightin Whitey]

They’re gonna wear that old boy out of life just to get another notch on the gavel.

Bastards.

[Fightin Whitey]

Why do folks post legal analysis when they do not have the faintest idea what they are talking about?

If we could only post things we know about we'd be left with

[myerson]

Wrong! Defendant can’t be required to testify or have any consequence or negative inference if he doesn’t.

[Candor7]

I visualize a neat hole there in that piece of crap’s forehead

[lodi90]

What the judge is suggesting is not out of the ordinary, unjust or punitive, it is what can/should happen when a defendant asks to withdraw a guilty plea.

This is 100% Powell’s fault. She has placed Flynn in the worst position possible, and it was all unnecessary. It was worse than unnecessary, it was utterly incompetent legal advice.

Powell is getting a free pass from many, many people, but these people should understand, when they cheer on Powell they are hurting Flynn, and only helping Powell cover up her disastrous representation

---

How so?

Flynn had made his bed long before Powell showed up on the scene.

[Gratia]

Here was Flynn’s bed at the moment Powell arrived: had pleaded guilty to a minor offense; got a promise of no incarceration; got a promise his son would not be prosecuted; could see the end of the stress and financial bleeding, and bring it all to a close; Flynn could have and IMO would have been pardoned by now.

After Powell: everything is off the table. Flynn is facing incarceration; Powell was legally obligated to move to withdraw his plea, so consequently Flynn may have to testify; Flynn pleaded guilty under oath twice, but his testimony almost certainly will require him to contradict his plea, exposing him to perjury charges; other charges against Flynn and his son are now on the table; the stress and the financial bleeding continue, and Flynn is asking normal Americans to pay Powell; Powell has made it possible for Flynn to look like a dishonorable liar, abandoning his son and contradicting his plea; and Flynn’s chances of a pardon have been jeopardized by Powell.

To emphasize, Powell is now legally obligated to move to withdraw the plea. She is dishonestly making it seem to the public as if she is doing it willingly. Powell did not want to make the motion, because even she understood how dangerous that was. But now she has put herself in a position where she has forced herself to do something she realized was dangerous.

[Gratia]

Here was Flynn’s bed at the moment Powell arrived: had pleaded guilty to a minor offense; got a promise of no incarceration; got a promise his son would not be prosecuted; could see the end of the stress and financial bleeding, and bring it all to a close; Flynn could have and IMO would have been pardoned by now.

After Powell: everything is off the table. Flynn is facing incarceration; Powell was legally obligated to move to withdraw his plea, so consequently Flynn may have to testify; Flynn pleaded guilty under oath twice, but his testimony almost certainly will require him to contradict his plea, exposing him to perjury charges; other charges against Flynn and his son are now on the table; the stress and the financial bleeding continue, and Flynn is asking normal Americans to pay Powell; Powell has made it possible for Flynn to look like a dishonorable liar, abandoning his son and contradicting his plea; and Flynn’s chances of a pardon have been jeopardized by Powell.

To emphasize, Powell is now legally obligated to move to withdraw the plea. She is dishonestly making it seem to the public as if she is doing it willingly. Powell did not want to make the motion, because even she understood how dangerous that was. But now she has put herself in a position where she has forced herself to do something she realized was dangerous.

[lodi90]

Here was Flynn’s bed at the moment Powell arrived: had pleaded guilty to a minor offense; got a promise of no incarceration; got a promise his son would not be prosecuted; could see the end of the stress and financial bleeding, and bring it all to a close; Flynn could have and IMO would have been pardoned by now.

---

Flynn got a promise? From who? Mueller’s thugs still at DOJ. In all likelihood they would have done exactly what they are doing now.

Nobody is getting a Spygate pardon before the election. Guaranteed.

[DrDude]

This Judge is “caught” between a rock and a hard place. He has many illegal actions by the Prosecution. He has massive political pressure to not reveal the illegal activities and withheld exculpatory evidence. Judge is trying to find a way to weasel out. If he was honest he would have dismissed more than a year ago.

[Gratia]

I would be interested in your legal analysis underlying your post.

What do you think about the exculpatory versus the impeaching aspect of the case, how significant is that for you?

And which test under Brady do you think is applicable, the probability test or the possibility test?

And what is your analysis of the applicability of Brady when there has been a guilty plea?

[DrDude]

I do have to say that I have my mind set on this matter. Been following since it arrived. That said, the impeaching information is minor. It is a weak case with little substance. I don’t believe the matter would stand up in any court. The excupatory evidence is major. This is an everyday occurrence in every court. Now the Prosecutors are hiding behind same. They have been found out and still haven’t made any attempt to rectify. they can’t. It is all related to POTUS. They could have avoided the current status by dismissing 2 years ago. All would have been buried. Now Flynn won’t let it die. He is fully within his rights to see this evidence. It will cost big time. The Judge has been playing games with the Brady Material for over a year. The Prosecution can no longer hide under Classified status. What to do? They doubled down. Judge is going along. Perhaps this entire exercise is to let Flynn bring out the Brady evidence in

[Gratia]

But what I was asking was your legal analysis on HOW the judge was playing games with Brady. I would find it very interesting. You obviously must have studied the law which governs Brady issues, otherwise you wouldn’t be giving your opinion on Brady.

What is your legal analysis?