Flynn’s lawyer means business
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is presiding over the case, gave Powell an unusual amount of leeway as she argued the government withheld information from her client to pressure him into accepting a guilty plea, which he never would’ve done had he been aware of all the facts. Flynn’s sentencing has been delayed for a year as he cooperated with the government.
Powell said Flynn’s legal team doesn’t plan to withdraw Flynn’s guilty plea, but “the entire prosecution should be dismissed for egregious misconduct and the withholding of Brady material,” referring to the Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland that requires prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence.
She claimed documentation exists that shows then-FBI deputy director McCabe ruled out Logan Act charges against Flynn in January or February of 2017, yet DOJ “egregiously” held the possibility of being charged under the 18th-century statute over his head during plea negotiations anyway.
Powell said the defense still hadn’t been given access to all the interview notes from Flynn’s discussions with FBI agents, including one written by agent Joe Pientka that the government claims it no longer has.
Sidney Powell—whom I’ve seen on a few talk shows; she’s quite impressive—is no stranger to the phenomenon of prosecutorial misconduct. Please see this previous post of mine.
What was done to Flynn was disgraceful.
The Logan act ploy was to get an investigation allowed. It worked.
can’t wait for Manju to justify Herr Müllers teutonic nazi Gestapo techniques. Imagine to squeeze an innocent person to get them to perjure themself to achieve a political end. Uncle Adolf would be proud of his nephew.
The government can lie when striking plea deals and talking with criminal defendants. There is SCOTUS precedent on this.
can’t wait for Manju to
He’s gotta earn his piece-rate. In any case, we’ve learned in the last couple of years (if we didn’t know already) that Democrats have no procedural principles. They’re not going to like it when that bites them on the ass.
Cornhead:
Doesn’t it matter that in the case of Flynn the government knew he had committed no crime?
About that last sentence of the blockquote: When are we going to see people face consequences for document destruction, er misplacement?
Cornhead on September 12, 2019 at 6:38 pm said:
The government can lie when striking plea deals and talking with criminal defendants. There is SCOTUS precedent on this.
* * *
There shouldn’t be.
If we can’t lie to the government, the government should not be allowed to lie to us.
(And yes, I do know the story of the hostage negotiator, and I argue that the situations in which prosecutors and cops and government officials routinely lie to the public is not analogous.)
The government (including police) can lie, but they can’t withhold exculpatory evidence. There is a profound difference between the two.
Michael Towns:
But can they lie to someone they know is innocent? Apparently, they knew Flynn to be innocent.
I’d like that question answered.
Neo, I think the answer to your question is YES, as long as they lie isn’t tied to a specific behavior of malfeasance, like deliberately refusing to turn over exculpatory evidence. (I’m not always right, but I think I am here.)
The best analogy I have is that of police detective conduct during an interrogation. Yes, they can lie to your face all day in the hope that you will voluntarily confess to committing a crime. It’s not illegal for cops to “trick” suspects this way, as long as the cops aren’t crossing the line into illegal *behavior or actions*. (I won’t delve into the argument that telling someone a verbal lie *is* a behavior; I’m talking about substantive actions that involve false testimony, withholding evidence, etc. There is a fine distinction here.)
MIchael Towns:
I know they can lie to suspects. But Flynn wasn’t actually a suspect. They knew he was innocent.
When the gov’t, er, the individuals getting paychecks from the gov’t, fail to produce requested documents. Or when those responsible “lose” them. Those individuals should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice / destruction of evidence.
They aren’t, So far. But should be. At least they should be publicly named, shamed, and probably fired. Or at least get an official bad report in their record.
The gov’t Deep State treatment of Flynn was disgraceful, and hugely effective.
Powell is right, the entire prosecution team should be fired.
The anti-Trump folk still control most of the hiring inside the gov’t, so most pro-Trump applicants fail to get on any shortlist for most spots. Even political appointment spots.
Pence is NOT helping here as much as Trump, and Reps, need. I like Mike, but he’s closer to a GOPe than most that Trump work with.
Christopher Wray might be protecting McCabe, whether to protect “his” FBI or for other reasons. He has not been any big win for Trump. Jeff Sessions was a small loss for Trump. Personnel is policy; and Trump dumping Bolton in a vulgar way is also a small loss for Trump, in what should have been a small gain, in getting an advisor more on board the “no war” ideas that Trump now has.
If McCabe gets indicted, I’ll agree that Barr was a big win for Trump — but not before. I’m still patiently hopeful.
Truly hope Powell and Judge Sullivan refuse to accept FBI / gov’t bad and illegal behavior, nor their juvenile excuses for illegal actions.
Michael, in re lies vs behavior: my gleaning from the discussion here, and from Powell’s very lengthy and specific list, is that, while LEOs are not legally permitted to withhold exculpatory evidence when asked for it, maybe they can fudge things if the defense doesn’t know there is anything to ask for.
That is, are they supposed to tell the defendant or “person of interest” that they have exculpatory evidence absent any indication that the defense already knows it exists?
Can the defense just make a blanket request for everything, even if they don’t know something specific to ask for?
In re the Process Crimes debate:
https://libertyunyielding.com/2019/09/12/the-flynn-brady-request-a-reminder-of-how-this-whole-thing-could-have-been-avoided/
The Flynn Brady request: A reminder of how this whole thing could have been avoided
By J.E. Dyer September 12,
Maybe Flynn wasn’t formally a ‘suspect’ but he was absolutely a ‘person of interest.’ I don’t have DOJ or FBI regulations at hand to see where the dividing line is, but I am 99% certain that officials can lie to you with no repercussions. Happens every day in prosecutions (and everyone is presumed “innocent”).
Michael Towns:
No, he was not a person of interest in the sense that the FBI knew at the time that he was not guilty. I don’t have time to find the source for that at the moment, but I believe that is part of some recent things that have been learned.
I think we are talking in circles, so I apologize. I know that the FBI targeted Flynn for the purpose of catching *him* in a lie or process crime, at least. So yes, they were bad actors and they knew he was innocent.
However, what I’m trying to convey (and not doing a good job of) is that police and prosecutors can lie to people — as long as that lie is not accompanied by actions (such as withholding evidence, etc.) Now, often the two go together, but I’m just suggesting that I do not think it’s illegal for agents to tell lies to innocent people. Happens all the time. I’m not justifying it, though.
Michael Towns:
It’s not illegal for agents to lie to innocent people. But I believe it may be illegal for agents to lie to people they know are innocent. I see a large distinction between the two situations, but I don’t know what the law has to say about it.
Also, as far as I know, it is not a crime to lie to prosecutors or police. However, it’s a crime to lie to the FBI.
So there are two big differences between the ordinary situation of police lying to someone they at least think might be guilty, and FBI officers lying to a person they know is not guilty, in order to trap him in a falsehood that then they can label a crime and prosecute him for.
Very very different situation, as I see it.
Margot Cleveland addresses some of the legal questions in her recent post.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/12/sidney-powells-latest-motion-michael-flynns-case-russiagate-bombshell/