Home » Sullivan’s crusade against Flynn: about that perjury charge

Comments

Sullivan’s crusade against Flynn: about that perjury charge — 64 Comments

  1. This is not my field, either, but my info is that a defendant in federal court is placed under oath for purposes of the plea “colloquy” with the judge, and must admit the underlying facts of the charge. But here, Flynn could just say that one of his statements was not true. I have no idea which one, since the DOJ never produced the Kislyak phone transcript or the original 302. And I don’t believe the DOJ stated exactly what statement was not true.

  2. Excellent explanation of the Flynn frame up. So many instances of legal malpractice, it makes one wonder. If the government can do this to a General with 33 years of honorable service and an unblemished record, what can they do to me? It does literally make one sick to the stomach.

    As Alan Dershowitz often explains, you must not talk to the FBI or any prosecutors without a lawyer and a tape recorder present. And even then, if they can find another witness that gives a different version of events, they can decide to accept that version and accuse you of lying. It’s a no win situation except for the FBI. So easy to set someone up as they did Flynn.

    Then, of course, there’s the gambit where they put you under extreme pressure then offer you a deal if you will not confess, but compose, a version of events that will incriminate their real target. Throughout the Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller investigations the ultimate target was Trump. K. T. McFarlane, Manafort, Cohen, Stone, and other lesser Trump supporters were subjected to that kind of pressure in many ways. That none of them except Cohen were willing to compose a narrative to their liking is pretty amazing.

    Their game was to find dirt on Trump sufficient to drive him from office or successfully impeach him. Short of that, they hoped to make life so difficult for Trump cabinet members and advisors that few people would be willing to take a job in the administration. This signals the first time that I know of when a political party in the U.S. refused to accept the results of an election.

  3. Neo- I’m confused. Did Judge Sullivan put General Flynn under oath or not? That quote by the “Political Animal” says “He [Sullivan] ALMOST bizarrely put Flynn under oath before demanding…” [my emphasis]

    I’m still unclear as to whether Flynn was in fact under oath or not when he reaffirmed his guilt in open court. If he was under oath I suppose I can understand the “Perjury” needle Judge Sullivan is trying to thread (even though I don’t like or agree with it because the coercion was still present). Otherwise, I don’t see how there could possibly be any perjury.

    It may be that Flynn was in fact under oath and I’ve just missed it….

  4. This post duplicates what you said to me in another post, and I replied at length to your comments there. It is up to you whether those comments bear repeating in this context.

    If I might make several “meta” comments or questions.

    To what extent does Flynn have agency in this case? I can assure you, when it comes to the most stupid street criminal, what he says during a guilty plea is treated as gold by courts. How about a Flynn? Is Flynn a feeble little lamb?

    I, too, ask lawyers with the requisite knowledge, have you ever seen a guilty plea NOT taken under oath?

    Regardless, is there a defense to a false statement under oath: I did it to help a relative? What is that argument?

    I see people on our side keep calling Powell brilliant. Please, please tell me why.

  5. @James S 7:32 PM

    A defendant swears under oath to much more than the facts underlying the charges. He swears to such vital things as voluntariness and lack of coercion; he swears to the existence or non existence of promises (like: we will not prosecute your relative).

    The sworn truth told by a defendant during a plea colloquy is crucial to the criminal justice system, in every and all respects important to justice.

  6. “The sworn truth told by a defendant during a plea colloquy is crucial to the criminal justice system, in every and all respects important to justice.”

    LOL

    Thank you for providing a perfect example of an inability to see the forest for the trees…

    If you’re a threat or even just an obstacle to the left’s agenda, they will facilitate your life’s destruction. There are now two standards of ‘justice’ at play in America; Beria’s “show me the man and I’ll show you the crime… and Ayers’ “guilty as hell, free as a bird…”.

  7. @Geoffrey Brittain 8:32 PM

    I see the forest AND the trees with 20/20 sight and insight, I assure you. Not that anyone cares, but I would radically reform the American system of justice if I could, and I base that on many years of experience.

    You do not see the trees for the forest. And that is the exact problem with our side in the Flynn case. This is a case where the individual trees are important, and too many are near sighted.

  8. J.J. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas seceded after the election and before Lincoln took office.

  9. @Cap’n Rusty 8:50 PM

    Democrats in those days had a different style of resistance. They lauded their version of medicare for the slaves and were not going to give it up when the wrong guy got elected. They at least had the honesty and fortitude to go to war with the guy they hated.

    Trump haters are sissies who snipe from their bubbles of entitlement.

  10. Aren’t there some other “trees” here? Like forged evidence (302s), illegal leaks and withholding exculpatory evidence? The court appointing an “arbiter” who had already given his opinion against one side?

  11. Tonawanda:

    Guilty or not guilty pleas are not initially given under oath.

    That’s why Sullivan made Flynn swear under oath during the plea stage, and that’s the part for which Sullivan’s trying to get Flynn for perjury – not for his plea itself. Pleas are allowed to be changed and are changed every day under no penalty of perjury. And ordinarily, defendants cannot be forced to testify against themselves under oath.

    See the discussion here. The consensus is that pleas are not given under oath.

    My question actually has several parts, and I address them to anyone who would like to answer, and who can give me a citation for the answer.

    (1) Is it standard during the sentencing part of a legal proceeding to put a defendant under oath and then ask a defendant who has previously pled guilty whether he/she is in fact guilty?

    (2) If not standard, is it ever done, and why?

    (3) Has there ever been a prosecution for perjury based on a defendant falsely swearing guilty under oath in that particular situation of a sentencing hearing?

    (4) If so, what was the case and circumstances?

    People who have pled guilty are allowed to withdraw pleas prior to sentencing if there is “any fair and just reason.” Flynn most definitely has a “fair and just reason” if anyone on earth ever did. And he has never been sentenced. There is also plenty of legal precedent (see that same article just linked, page 3) that says the rules governing plea change should be liberally applied to favor the defendant “to safeguard the life and liberty of the accused”.

    If it’s justice we are after, the fact that a defendant was threatened into a guilty plea (and tricked, and lied to, and was the victim of prosecutor misconduct as well as defense attorney incompetence and/or conflict of interest) is also highly relevant in evaluating that guilty plea and deciding whether to allow the defendant to withdraw it. In this case we also have a prosecution that has withdrawn.

    Only the judge is soldiering on, as prosecutor.

    So although “The sworn truth told by a defendant during a plea colloquy is crucial to the criminal justice system, in every and all respects important to justice” that does NOT mean it cannot be withdrawn, or that such withdrawal would subject the defendant to a perjury prosecution. The safeguarding of the rights of the defendant, and the interest in protecting defendants against unfair and deceptive prosecutions and abuse of power, is very much crucial to the criminal justice system. In fact, that protection is more crucial than the plea of the defendant, whether sworn or not. I would actually say that protection of the defendant from such abuse is the foundation of our criminal justice system.

  12. Sullivan’s tactic is to delay a definite outcome. Keep the leftist smearing up until something sticks.

    Trump needs to let this play out, but by June, I desperately hope he calls for a Special Counsel probe of Spygate-Obamagate.

    If properly founded and ranged, this New Albatross on the enemy Democrats will run two years into the next Administration, which may not be Trumps to lead.

    By June, it is summer, people are busier and the country largely reopened. And therefore the Left media caterwauling won’t matter. All that matters is a solid special prosecutor. And I believe that while Barr is fair, the Left isn’t. Like turn the other cheek Bush, he’s far too fair to appoint a payback Justice prosecutor.

    Does anyone want to debate who is and isn’t the man for this high media exposure job? Is there anyone to generate full confidence by the ever victimised Right?

  13. The sworn truth told by a defendant during a plea colloquy is crucial to the criminal justice system, in every and all respects important to justice.

    No it isn’t. The plea and its alleged truth is a legal fiction, because every judge knows that every day in the US people plead guilty who are not guilty of anything, or plead guilty to a crime they didn’t commit to avoid a charge on a crime they did. Ergo, criminal judges across the country knowingly suborn perjury in their courtrooms.

  14. Neo said,

    “Guilty or not guilty pleas ARE NOT UNDER OATH.”

    Sadly, this isn’t always true. It probably should be but it isn’t. I know of a number of judges in NYS who demand that all defendants make their pleas under oath. I’m not saying its right or just. I’m just saying that it happens quite a bit more than people believe.

    At least two (I can’t remember if this applies to all of them) give specific warnings about possible perjury charges if they decide to change their plea. One makes them sign a form that affirms that they open themselves up to perjury charges if they change their plea.

    I have never heard a defense attorney object to any of that. Never once in my career.

  15. Bob Smith:

    And, as you can see from my above comment at 9:15 PM, they regularly allow plea changes.

  16. neo 9:15 PM

    1) Neo, I say this with great and sincere respect.

    2) Not guilty pleas and guilty pleas are two entirely different legal things.

    3) Not guilty pleas are announcements of a legal position and not a statement of fact.

    4) Guilty pleas are a statement of fact.

    5) By guilty plea, I mean the entire plea colloquy. Maybe that is where we misunderstand each other.

    6) Your cite on the question is quite astonishing. Truly an amazing cite.

    7) I never said pleas could not be withdrawn. That question is 100% irrelevant to what we are discussing, and commits the fallacy of begging the question.

    8) This is a perfect example of changing your mind. Your mind, and those of Powell supporters everywhere, are quite made up. There is very little which will change them.

    9) What concerns me is that the corruption is quite vast and disturbing, but an incompetent lawyer (Powell) has succeeded in getting people focused on the weakest aspect of it all, an aspect necessarily involving someone of insufficient character to figure it all out and stand up to it.

  17. @ Bob Smith 9:21 PM

    You refute yourself. The entire point is that perjury is suborned, but the legal system has endorsed it. Neo does not grasp this point either.

    The reality is, you will not find any appellate courts EVER not endorsing this subornation of perjury. The entire system would collapse.

    And any lawyer, like Powell, who uses this lame approach to challenging a plea, is a bad lawyer who is advising a client to run into machine gun fire.

  18. @Fractal Rabbit 9:26 PM

    Yes, defendants who are about to plea are put under oath, and some times told they will be committing perjury if they lie during the plea colloquy.

    Sullivan did not say that exactly to Flynn during the plea colloquy. Sullivan said something like “you will get into trouble if you lie to me.” But then Flynn lied to him anyway. In fact, Powell’s argument is based upon the premise that Flynn lied to Sullivan.

  19. I am not a lawyer but I have a lot of lawyer friends and that does not count. Fly was pushed into a corner after exhausting all of his resources and then confronted with the fact they were going after his son. He fell on his sword to protect his frick’n family and all the legal back and forth does not change that, being a warrior he was willing to do the forlorn hope to save his family.

    Now we find out the whole thing was fabrication and this one special judge wants to play this out as long as he can, I don’t know the law but I know they are stretching out the patience of a lot of good folk who might show up and vote in November and help bring about some changes to this charade the left has promulgated for almost four years.

  20. Sullivan did not say that exactly to Flynn during the plea colloquy. Sullivan said something like “you will get into trouble if you lie to me.” But then Flynn lied to him anyway. In fact, Powell’s argument is based upon the premise that Flynn lied to Sullivan.

    I gather Correct-the-Record told you to pretend you didn’t understand what’s meant by ‘extortion’.

  21. Tonawanda,

    My experience is only with the state of New York. I’ve got none at the federal level.

    Not every judge I have seen has defendants make their guilty pleas under oath. Most have done so but a few like to do things their own way. They call it the NYS Unified Court System. It is unified but not uniform. We have some freewheeling judges, I can tell you.

    Also I should have been more specific in my prior post regarding the difference between a non guilty plea and a guilty plea.

  22. “I see the forest AND the trees with 20/20 sight and insight, I assure you.” Are you sure it isn’t 20/15? Do you see the future too? Such modesty, for someone who isn’t representing General Flynn, if only he had your services.

  23. Tonawanda – Sidney Powell wrote a best seller “Licensed to Lie.” She argues that the federal justice system has been deeply corrupt and politicised beginning with 2001. (Hint: why then? What happened?)

    In the past month, the indefatigable Stephan Molyneau has twice interviewed Criminal Federal Tax Defense attorney Robert Barnes from LA for expert commentary, poster to YouTube, bitchute and soundcloud and elsewhere. Together, both can be fairly seen as coming from a libertarian perspective on Flynn’s case.

    The hour-long one in early May gave me eye-peeling insight into Federal abuse of prosecutorial powers and their too-frequent victims. Flynn is, in Barnes experience, a typical naïf who he winds up defending in tax cases. By contrast, His second, 35minute interview within the last week, was much more Flynn focused and less expansive about Federal prosecutors controversies, generally.

    One case in point, action movie star Wesley Snipes fell into a circle of tax resistance-type advisors and he did not file IRS income tax returns for years, despite not intending to be a “resister” (as Snipes described to Larry King in 2010, before starting time in a Federal prison). He naively thought he had simply found the best advice.

    Barnes says Flynn is another example of the naive and gullible, the sort of defendant ripe for power mad prosecutors to abuse away any pretence of civil rights or Truth seeking, but perfect for scoring political points and manipulation. And Snipes, early in the Obama years, was picked to be a “Don’t Mess With Us” public enemy, and thus an ideal case for the IRS to politicise and intimidate people into uncritical compliance.

    For example, the government deliberately selected venues almost guaranteed p to maximise the probability of a guilty outcome and ride roughshod over any criminal civil rights. Snipes, who is black and from Florida, was tried in a likely racist sympathising county in the panhandle. Meanwhile, his tax resistor libertarian advisors were tried in a pro-bureaucrat Big Government loving venue closest to DC.

    Furthermore, Barnes points out that the 99% conviction rate that the US enjoys by Federal prosecutors comes from a legal culture eager to bend procedure, deny rights of the accused, and manufacture results, including from the least reliable sort of evidence, eg, eye-witnesses or their post interview notes maybe…conveniently edited and deny exculpatory facts and statements. Gaslighting ‘R us!

    US conviction rates are far in excess of those found world-wide, where 80% is typically seen in totalitarian states. Of course, this merely suggests suspicious problems, it doesn’t define ours or their proper remedy.

    Now, to Neo’s reply and query, which is focused and specific. People ought to refer to a tweet thread by Leslie McAdoo Gordon and go down to the 19th of May dates posts https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon

    She appears to be a practicing Federal lawyer (specialising in background checks), who has written many posts at The Federalist on the legal mayhem in the Flynn saga. At her tweets, she gives links and short instructive summaries of them that may answer some of more of the questions neo seeks answers to.

  24. Cap’n Rusty: “J.J. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas seceded after the election and before Lincoln took office.”

    Thanks for the correction. As Tonawanda said, at least they were open about their intentions. The pond scum who are trying to sabotage Trump are like cockroaches. They scatter when the lights are turned on.

  25. Having looked at it again, I see that I initially misread that quote from “Political Animal.” I therefore withdraw my comment and question from 7:40pm. Flynn was under oath. What Political Animal is saying that is that Sullivan’s requirement that Flynn be put under oath before re-admitting his guilt was almost bizarre, not that It was bizarre that Sullivan almost put Flynn under oath. Sorry about that.

    – Carl
    (In full Emily Litella mode)

  26. Tonawanda; or anyone else for that matter:

    Why was Sullivan’s action in the sentencing hearing described as “bizarre,” when he placed Flynn under oath and demanded he “admit his guilt and deny all the right-wing talking points…and admit that…there had been no misconduct in how his interviews were conducted”? Was it the placing under oath that was bizarre? Or all the things Sullivan wanted Flynn to say under oath that were bizarre? In other words, why did that writer I linked to and quoted call Sullivan’s actions “bizarre”? Do you know? Do you agree that they were bizarre, or do you think this is standard stuff for a federal judge to do in such a federal criminal proceeding and not bizarre at all?

    Even without that particular behavior being bizarre, however, the behavior in Flynn’s case of his prosecutors (and original defense attorneys, and the FBI agents who questioned him) is relevant to the disposition of his case. All those things would affect (and effect, as well) a guilty plea – a false guilty plea. The article I linked to in my earlier comment indicates that guilty pleas are allowed to be withdrawn/changed under certain circumstances that arguably fit the Flynn case.

    Of course I’m aware that the plea withdrawal question is a separate question from the perjury question – that is, whether a person could be liable for perjury for withdrawing a plea given under oath. The point of mentioning the article about withdrawing pleas was just to establish that it’s considered acceptable to do so under certain circumstances, and that apparently the court is supposed to be liberal in applying it to a defendant who wishes to change a plea in that way.

    The next question, one that follows upon the fact that a plea can be changed under certain circumstances, is whether such defendants are ever charged with perjury at that point, because of earlier having given a false plea under oath. I have made it quite clear that this is not a field I’m knowledgeable about, but it’s my impression that the answer is “no, they are not.” Perhaps that’s incorrect, though. I’m just looking for the answer to the question: has a person (prior to the Flynn case) ever been charged with perjury for trying to withdraw a guilty plea that has been previously sworn to?

    And in particular, to be more exact, is there any defendant who has been subjected to investigative and prosecutorial misconduct (for example, as in Flynn’s case, not turning over Brady materials) and who then changes his plea after these facts are revealed and after the prosecution has stopped prosecuting and recommended the charges be dropped, who has then been charged with perjury for changing/withdrawing the guilty plea? I’m especially interested in the answer to that question.

  27. Another question for any takers:

    Does anyone have a transcript, or relevant quotes, from the sentencing hearing in which Sullivan made Flynn swear he hadn’t been the victim of misconduct by his FBI interviewers, and all the rest?

  28. It’s interesting that some here pronounce Sidney Powell as incompetent with no examples of proof and in the same paragraph, demand evidence otherwise from the audience. If nothing else, Sidney Powell has dramatically turned the direction of the case in Flynn’s favor, and since it seems destined to be tried in parallel in the Court of Public Opinion (by the FBI, DOJ, and Judge Sullivan himself) I find it hard to believe such assertions. Flynn could be in jail right now if he had not taken her on.

    The bizarre turns that this judge is taking, and his increasingly evident ties to the toxic Progressive legions, seems to me very odd, very out-of-balance. I don’t think the persecution of Flynn is about getting at Trump, there is clearly nothing left there to mine, as there was little-to-nothing there to begin with.

    So: What target is Flynn over, to draw all this fire? I wonder if this is more about Flynn’s past with Obama. If you think Obama is exposed badly by his administration’s nasty, bush-league handover to the incoming Trump administration, well this is small beer, stale and flat. What about protecting Obama’s sacred magical legacy? Shall we examine the Iran Deal, anyone have a microscope>? I bet Trump knows all about it.

  29. Still another point is this:

    [Flynn’s new lawyers claimed in a filing] that the head prosecutor on the case, Brandon Van Grack, made a “side deal” with Flynn’s former defense team to not prosecute Flynn’s son — despite threatening to Flynn that he would do so — in order to get Flynn to plead guilty.

    Heavily-redacted emails show Flynn’s former lawyers discussing why the deal needed to be “kept secret,” implying that Flynn would be used to testify in further criminal cases. “The government took pains not to give a promise to MTF regarding Michael Jr., so as to limit how much of a ‘benefit’ it would have to disclose as part of its Giglio disclosures to any defendant against whom MTF may one day testify,” one email states. Giglio v. United States says the failure to disclose immunity deals to co-conspirators constitutes a violation of due process rights.

    Citing an FBI official, The Federalist reported Friday that new documents filed in court have “significant” exculpatory evidence for Flynn, but were opposed from being disclosed by FBI general counsel Dana Boente. The Daily Caller then reported that Boente was acting on behalf of FBI Director Christopher Wray.

    More at the link.

  30. Aggie:

    I think a couple of things are going on with the continued persecution/prosecution of Flynn.

    The first is that I believe at some point in the proceedings, Judge Sullivan developed a personal animus against Flynn, and perhaps also against Powell but definitely against Flynn. The “treason” rant was evidence of that.

    The second is that Flynn is the linchpin of the Obama and company case that the Trump administration was rotten and in league with Russia and a bunch of lying liars etc.. Their original hopes that Flynn would implicate Trump have been dashed, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t still highly desirous of Flynn being punished and being made to grovel. Their supporters demand it. They’ve been fed for over three years on a daily diet of Trump’s guilt, and Flynn’s supposed guilt is very much part of that. His guilty plea is their great victory, and they are very loathe to give it up.

  31. Tonawanda, perhaps better renamed Lackawanna, blows a lot of legal smoke without ever stating his/her credentials. If that credential were being a NYS judge of high standing, that would make a difference.

    I remain unpersuaded that the vigorous bluster of his/her comments are truly and incontrovertibly based in legal fact, precedent and procedure.

    Of course, I am not a lawyer, but like others here I recognize a perversion of justice under law and a judicial lynching when I see it.
    I am always reminded that lawyers argue pro and con, and one argument wins. They argue. What a career.

  32. Neo:

    Well they certainly don’t want to scream at the sky again (Nov 2016) if General Flynn is not convicted. It didn’t seem to bring catharsis the last time they did it.

  33. This essay by George Will (Yes, that Never-Trumper) about the pervasiveness of coerced plea deals has a bearing on this issue. Though it still doesn’t answer Neo’s questions, it’s another aspect of the argument that Flynn was framed and that Judge Sullivan is part of the plot.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/our-plea-bargain-system-can-make-the-innocent-admit-guilt-enter-michael-flynn/2020/05/19/27eb0fc6-99e1-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html

    “Responding to Neily’s Declaration, the Justice Department complacently asserts that U.S. law guarantees fair trials: Coercive plea bargains are forbidden, therefore they do not occur, so innocent people do not plead guilty. Move along, nothing to see here.

    The Justice Department should consult Jed S. Rakoff. In a 2014 essay, “Why Innocent People Plead Guilty,” he wrote that since the last third of the previous century, a fair trial — an adversarial process, conducted in public before a neutral judge and a jury of the defendant’s peers — has become “all a mirage.” Rakoff is a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.”

    Neo’s point above about the nature of the bargain between Flynn’s lawyers and the DOJ prosecutors indicates that the prosecutors hoped to use him as a witness against some other possible perpetrator. This, IMO, shows that the real target was Trump and Flynn, they hoped, was a way to get at him.

  34. It’s not about getting Trump or even Flynn at this point. It’s about keeping the coverup going. Look what has already come out about this. If Flynn stays convicted they can still pretend the “collusion” investigation wasn’t an utter fraud, to say nothing of illegal and seditious. With Obama as the prime mover.

  35. Almost OT (sorry). But examining Leslie McAdoo Gordon’s thread on the topic, with Margot Cleveland at The Federalist – what purpose did the Rice email “by the book” email serve – led me to few posts by one Greg Rubini.

    Claiming to be in hi tech and strategy and long-time Trump supporter, he posts some detailed possible prosecutorial charges said to come from Durham, against Brennan and Comey.

    I know this is no more than rumour (or worse, disinformation). But it is late in the week. Possible trial balloon?
    See https://twitter.com/GregRubini/status/1262830519651205121

    If THIS is true, it’s real juicy Red Meat to our starving side.

  36. Please see the ADDENDUM I added at the end of the post. I think it clarifies some things.

  37. Some commentary from the NY Sun.
    Flynn’s case is drawing forth a legion of literary analogies.
    https://www.nysun.com/editorials/general-flynn-appeals-for-an-end-to-a-kafkaesque/91136/

    It’s not entirely clear to us — no offense to Ms. Powell — whether Franz Kafka could have come up with a plot as nefarious as the one by which the FBI brass and certain rogue elements within the Justice Department managed to entangle General Flynn. One of Kafka’s works Ms. Powell quotes in the petition, after all, is the dystopian novel “The Trial,” which even Kafka failed to finish. Ms. Powell may be made of sterner stuff.

    The petition references not only Kafka’s “The Trial,” which Orson Welles made into a movie starring Anthony Perkins. The petition also cites a short story, “In the Penal Colony.” In it Kafka imagines a contraption for meting out justice that tortures the condemned by inscribing on his body the text of the statutes he has allegedly broken. Not a bad metaphor for the attempt at destroying General Flynn’s reputation. It’s a case that demands to be ended by a writ of mandamus from the court above.

    https://www.nysun.com/editorials/judge-sullivan-ignores-shocking-record-of-false/91131/

    The fact is that it’s by no means rare for persons to plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. Some are scared. Others confused. Some lack the intestinal fortitude or financial wherewithal to stand up against the warnings or threats from the prosecutors. What’s so unusual in the Flynn case is that the Democrats and liberals are siding against the poor schlepper caught in the prosecutorial vice.

    It turns out that one serious liberal institution, the Innocence Project, maintains a whole Website devoted to persons who plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. It’s called GuiltyPleaProblem.com. The first click on it brings up a headline asking the question, “Why do innocent people plead guilty to crimes they didn’t commit?” The Website offers illuminating background to the problem.

    Some 95% of felony convictions in America, the Website notes, are obtained through guilty pleas. Among persons known to be exonerated, it reports, a staggering 18% pleaded guilty to crimes they didn’t commit. It is a humbling statistic for those of us who cover the courts. The filing of a guilty plea by an innocent party occurs at a pace that leaves GuiltyPleaProblem.com saying: “there’s no telling how many are behind bars as a result.”

    At the time [of the sentencing hearing] the Post noted, “Some Flynn allies even speculated the judge might toss out Flynn’s guilty plea and clear his name.” Instead, the judge balked. So imagine how humiliated Judge Sullivan must feel now. He failed, after all, to see, or unearth, the abuses by the FBI brass and the Special Counsel’s prosecutors. The Justice Department itself beat the judge to the story of the abuses by the Justice Department’s own officers.

    That’s the context in which to view Judge Sullivan’s fury over the idea that an Army lieutenant general, who served in combat zones, might crumple in the face of a prosecutorial onslaught and plead to a felony he didn’t commit. Is it true, as General Flynn and various news stories suggested, that prosecutors threatened to pursue the general’s son? Why isn’t Judge Sullivan himself pressing that question?

  38. Worth reviewing.
    https://pjmedia.com/columns/jimfanell/2020/05/11/the-real-reason-for-flynns-first-firing-n389686

    Retired Lieutenant General James Clapper was the Director of National Intelligence, senior to General Flynn who at the time was still on active duty. While DIA leaders undercut General Flynn from below, Mr. Clapper attacked General Flynn from above because General Flynn was committing the ultimate sin of the Obama administration: he was telling the truth rather than repeating Ben Rhodes’ narratives. (Full disclosure: I am not unbiased. I gave a speech in 2014 which discussed PRC maritime expansionism in the South China Sea which the Obama administration and DIA at the time denied was happening. I was warned immediately afterward and fired later in that year.)

    The nation is correctly focused on the lawlessness of the Obama administration, but Americans should not forget that the reason General Flynn was fired the first time by the Obama administration was because of his honesty, not because he lied. The FBI’s carefully constructed perjury trap came later in a Soviet-style attempt to slander Mr. Flynn with the antonym of his chief virtue.

    A second Trump administration must make intelligence community reform across all 17 agencies a top priority, because the very essence of useful intelligence assessments is to accept the truth as it exists in front of us, not the party line.

    I have a friend who worked in upper DOD circles at the time, and the apparatchiks were, in fact and in truth, deliberately undercutting and disobeying orders from Flynn because, in their view, he was “stupid” or even unhinged — for daring to contradict Obama’s Party Line.

  39. I comment rarely, but that’is just me. When I do comment I labor to keep it short, and perhaps stupid. But, I look at long, or multiple comments on a given thread as narcissistic. It’s like idiots at AoS proclaiming first. Preening is best left to chickens, they do it better.

  40. Buried in this Manafort story is a Flynn connection.
    https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/05/20/undercover-huber-special-counsels-office-may-have-leaked-fake-story-to-cnn-to-influence-manafort-probe/


    Just a couple of months after Manafort’s lawyer was turned against him, @GenFlynn own attorneys Covington & Burling would cite this aggressive “Manafort treatment” in their own interviews with the SCO, likely fearing they’d get the same if they didn’t get Flynn to plead guilty.

    Covington and Burling no doubt feared being dragged in front of Grand Jury, leaked about in the media, and asked to explain their FARA filing preparations as Manafort’s attorney had been, especially as legal assistance with FARA is a big part of their business. So they caved.
    In addition, something not known at the time of the CNN leaks, is that Trump’s own personal attorney Michael Cohen was also under investigation by the SCO. So that’s Manafort’s attorney, Flynn’s attorneys and Trump’s attorney all in the SCO’s crosshairs.

    In fact, the SCO had sought search warrants on Cohen’s personal devices/comms as early as *July 18, 2017*. Guess who from? Yep, the same Chief Judge Beryl Howell in D.C. This was kept under seal for nearly two years. But of course the SCO knew and planned all of this at the time.

    Ultimately, the purpose of these fake stories and this coordinated leaking campaign was so the Special Counsel could establish an aggressive “rep” on the street

    *We can even get your lawyers to talk. Maybe we’ve even heard what you’ve said to them already on a FISA (wink wink)*

    This troubling pattern makes it clear that the SCO’s goal was to go after even the lawyers defending Trump’s team, Manafort, Flynn and Trump himself.

    Maybe this aggressive approach would be justified had there been any “Collusion”, or an actual threat to national security, but we now know that the SCO knew they had nothing *at the time* they were doing this.

    CONCLUSION

    The media were willing participants in SCO intimidation. And while CNN did append an editors note over two years later, they’ve done nothing to expose the “sources” of this fake FISA, who likely are former members of the Special Counsel’s Office.

  41. Yes, it makes all the sense in the world that in Obama’s Fundamentally Transformed America (OFTUS) they would go after the defense lawyers.

    To “shore up” their case. To “prove” what after all is—in OFTUS—obvious. Or should be obvious. Or WILL BE obvious.

    (A little innuendo here and there; a few subtle—or not so subtle—“hints” could work wonders…and who knows? Those lawyers might start doing exactly what you want them to do! IOW do exactly what they SHOULD be doing…in OFTUS.)

    Not everyone, alas, is a Sidney Powell, bless her and give her strength (though what are the chances THEY are already searching high and low for ways to get to her, to leverage her, to compromise her?)

    These brutes, these criminals, will stop at absolutely nothing. One hopes it will be the cause of the undoing of the Obama Mafia, of the Democratic Party Syndicate.

    File under: Offed us (or tried to)

  42. “Why isn’t Judge Sullivan himself pressing that question?”

    Now THAT’s a real head-scratcher….

  43. Neo,

    Even though I have seen defendants regularly told they can be charged with perjury for guilty pleas made under oath, I have never seen one charged for changing their plea.

    And in terms of prosecutorial misconduct (like on LTG Flynn’s case) when such misconduct has come to light every judge I ever known has come down on that misconduct hard. Ton of bricks hard. I’ve seen it a few times. They have always been allowed to withdraw their plea, often with Apollo from the court. And I know of two former ADAs who can longer find work in NYS because of the misconduct. They weren’t disbarred (Attorneys hate to do that; they protect their own. Like judges) but word spread about heir behavior.

    As far as the judge’s behavior being bizarre, I just don’t know. I’ve never seen a federal judge at work.

    However, there’s the dreaded BRD: Black Robe Disease.

    There’s no way to predict who will acquire this disease before they take the bench. Some of the seemingly nicest people turn into absolute tyrants. Some of the biggest d-bags turn out to be straight down the middle fair. But either way, judges are, for all intents and purposes (and until they get called on it, and sometimes not even THEN) a law unto themselves within the courtroom, courthouse and even their jurisdiction. It’s just too hard to punish judges. Punishments is meted out by other judges and it’s a club. They don’t like going after their own.

    I’d like to clarify as well: What is happening to LTG Flynn is a the clearest case of judicial misconduct I’ve seen in a long time. My dispute regarding guilty pleas under oath was not meant to be construed as an excuse for Judge Sullivan’s behavior. The man, as far as I am concerned, has decided to hoist the Deep State flag and begin slitting throats, to paraphrase Mencken.

  44. Barry Meislin,

    I saw that article! I got a good laugh before I prayed for the man.

    Funny how a brush with mortality and a good long look at eternity cam give some ya real kick in the ass.

  45. Once, when I was managing a contract with the USG a minor functionary tried to force me to do something outside of the scope of the contract using a completely illegal threat. The details are unimportant. When I protested, “You can’t do that!”, he responded, “We’re the Federal Government. We can do anything we want to.”

    In this case, he was overruled by his manager, who was wiser than he was, but his words stuck with me. Certainly, he was inexperienced and wrong, but that level of arrogance did not originate in a vacuum. That mindset is pervasive in the government from the top to the bottom. I saw that same self-satisfied arrogance in the interview with Comey in which he admitted that they interviewed Flynn because they could “get away with it”.

    In the case of Gen. Michael Flynn, they set him up and railroaded him simply because they could and because they wanted to. And they are STILL trying to! In their ultimate arrogance, they believe, “We are the Federal Government. We can do anything we want to.”

    Even if they ultimately go to jail for their perfidy, they will never believe that they did anything wrong.

  46. Well, after reading that short-and-sweet-blurb-with-a-happy-ending, I said to myself, “That guy, he’s going to be a preacher some day…” (Well, if it happened to Little Richard…)

    Joking aside, this whole Flynn scandal, and its latest “extra-judicial” twist, is so outrageous, so depressing, so troubling, so “Twilight Zone-ish”, that one has to, for sanity’s sake, do one’s best to find something refreshing and down to earth.
    Think I found it:
    https://nypost.com/video/mystery-surrounds-ufo-reports-out-of-nazi-germany-and-antarctica/

  47. “…simply because they could and because they wanted to…”

    Well, yes and no.

    Yes they could do it (and did do it).

    But unfortunately, it wasn’t just a deep desire, a challenge, dare, ambition or “whim” (“Hey, wow, Joe, let’s see what happens if we try this plan…!” “Gosh, Barry, do you think we can get away with it? Let’s try and see what happens!” “Yo, John, Susan, let’s go where no administration has ever gone before. Trust me, I have a Harvard degree!”…. )

    Um, no, it’s far more than that.

    For the Obama administration et al., it was a MORAL IMPERATIVE.

    We’re in Stasi-KGB territory here.

  48. Ballet dance video (2016), set to George Harrison’s “What is Life” From 1971.
    Please read into the comments for further background as well as interpretation of the music video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiH9edd25Bc

    Harrison passed from lung cancer in 2002 at age 58.

    The video might be shot in Northern Virginia, by my reckoning (the new neo-colonial homes, the forest and the military cemetery all suggests that or a similar locale). The dancer is identified as Emma Rubinowitz, then with the San Francisco Ballet.

    Harrison’s widow and son held an international contest for a video to the song, and this was the winning entry. Lots of layers to enjoy, here.

    I was merely feeling musically nostalgic, and bounced from Glenn Frey’s “Sunset Grill “ (1984-5), to the Beatles “Nowhere Man” (1965), and then stumbled into the wonderful video above. I’m sharing with neo to thank her for the finely tuned ADDENDUM. Enjoy, all!

  49. What I find most shocking is Judge Sullivan’s lack of interest in holding the prosecutors to account for lying to the court. When the story about hiding the side deal to quit threatening Flynn’s son came to light, I actually hoped that would be the breaking point, on the theory that the most callous judges draw the line at being lied to by the lawyers, especially the state’s lawyers. I was always taught it was the deadliest thing you could do in court, or even open yourself to suspicion of having done.

  50. It’s interesting that some here pronounce Sidney Powell as incompetent with no examples of proof and in the same paragraph, demand evidence otherwise from the audience.

    That must have been the the day’s talking points from Correct-the-Record. Or Tonawanda confuses ‘incompetent’ with ‘inconvenient’.

  51. All the discussion about all the legal niceties remind me of the religious discussions about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. They are like chewing gum or sitting in a rocking chair; they give you something to do but they don’t get you anywhere.

    Neo hit the nail on the head when she said “…What is happening to LTG Flynn is a the clearest case of judicial misconduct I’ve seen in a long time.” I would add prosecutorial misconduct as well.

    Any discussion that doesn’t end with correcting this horrible injustice is a waste of time and a terrible disservice to the law. If the laws and the courts don’t result in justice then of what use are they?

  52. Aggie asked upthread: “So: What target is Flynn over, to draw all this fire? I wonder if this is more about Flynn’s past with Obama. If you think Obama is exposed badly by his administration’s nasty, bush-league handover to the incoming Trump administration, well this is small beer, stale and flat. What about protecting Obama’s sacred magical legacy? Shall we examine the Iran Deal, anyone have a microscope>? I bet Trump knows all about it.

    And comes today a Lee Smith article in The Tablet with a potential answer:
    How Russiagate Began With Obama’s Iran Deal Domestic Spying Campaign
    Michael Flynn posed a threat to the former president’s legacy and was made to pay for it

    Barack Obama warned his successor against hiring Michael Flynn. It was Nov. 10, 2016, just two days after Donald Trump upset Hillary Clinton to become the 45th president of the United States. Trump told aide Hope Hicks that he was bewildered by the president’s warning. Of all the important things Obama could have discussed with him, the outgoing commander in chief wanted to talk about Michael Flynn.

    The question of why Obama was so focused on Flynn is especially revealing now. The Department of Justice recently filed to withdraw charges against the retired three-star general for making false statements to the FBI in a Jan. 24, 2017, interview regarding a phone call with a Russian diplomat. The circumstances surrounding the call and subsequent FBI interview have given rise to a vast conspiracy theory that was weaponized to imprison a decorated war hero and a strategic thinker whose battlefield innovations saved countless American lives. There is no evidence that Flynn “colluded” with Russia, and the evidence that Flynn did not make false statements to the FBI has been buried by the bureau, including current Director Christopher Wray.

    So if the Obama administration wasn’t alarmed by Flynn’s nonexistent ties to Russia, why was he Obama’s No. 1 target? Why were officials from the previous administration intercepting his phone calls with the Russian ambassador?

    The answer is that Obama saw Flynn as a signal threat to his legacy, which was rooted in his July 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran—the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Flynn had said long before he signed on with the Trump campaign that it was a catastrophe to realign American interests with those of a terror state. And now that the candidate he’d advised was the new president-elect, Flynn was in a position to help undo the deal. To stop Flynn, the outgoing White House ran the same offense it used to sell the Iran deal—they smeared Flynn through the press as an agent of a foreign power, spied on him, and leaked classified intercepts of his conversations to reliable echo chamber allies.

    Rtwt

  53. Looks like this thing will never end.
    Unless and until the voters get disgusted.
    But the voters are prevented at all costs from finding out about it. (And then there’s the “write-in” voters, the “dead” voters, the “non-citizen” voters, etc…)
    And so, evil—behind a smiling, humane, earnest and caring (and patriotic) mask—becomes pervasive.

    Clinton, Obama, they just never stop. (And so they will always have to be protected by the MSCM….)
    https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/05/14/transcripts_clinton_aides_joined_post-election_bid_to_re-push_anti-trump_dossier_123616.html
    Key graf:
    “Podesta’s and Sullivan’s recently released testimony provides evidence that the Clinton team and other Democrats never stopped campaigning against Trump. Hillary Clinton didn’t just pay for the Russian-sourced opposition research on candidate Trump before the election; her top aides helped bankroll continuing efforts to cast the now sitting president as a Russian agent.”

    One would like to believe that these people are cruising for a bruising…. And yet, one cannot be certain that they will ever get it.

  54. Still cannot rely on the platform I’m using to deliver the text I think I am composing, but I will risk trying to say that there does seem to have been at least some clarification and narrowing the issue.

    The consensus now appears to be that Sullivan is exploring charging Flynn with criminal contempt of court for perjury in a plea deal, not for perjury as it might have been understood by most readers initially.

    In this regard, Tonawanda has pointed to a useful distinction between the forest of prosecutorial corruption, and the tree of the formulation of the plea in that court in that case.

    But, when in attempting to minimize the aspect of plea coercion, it is done by reformulating it via a rhetorical question, into a matter of doing a favor for a relative, then, the matter in contention cannot be resolved merely by redoubled attention to detail.

    Most of the news we get is unfortunately filtered through a polemical lens and calculated to elicit maximum outrage.

    I would assume that it is only on specialist blogs where one might get some, I repeat , some, dispassionate and informed technical analysis of the case and its developments. I’m not even exactly sure what Flynn’s plea deal entailed in detail so far as exposure to actual confinement. But I have not spent even one concentrated hour on it much less the half dozen or more it would take to master the detail from documentary sources.

    And frankly, as the whole predicate seems to have been corrupt, and as important documents and their iterations are missing, to the sublime indifference of the judge, it is no wonder that emotions flare instead .Especially as people naturally see it as part of the Federal Government’s standard operating procedure of runing and destroying human targets through an eternal process of attrition and legal harassment… Now being turned into a shameless partisan political weapon in the hands of progressives, intended to undermine and destroy an incoming administrstion.

    We should consider it a miracle that anyone is willing to attend to detail at this point, rather than just saying, “burn it all down,
    “, and “Bring on the War. Social war, down to the knife …”

    Because when conservative begin to ask themselves what’s the point of abiding rules the liberal don’t, and what value a liberal life has for them as opposed to the sometimes fatal costs it imposes, we are in big trouble. And all the sputtering references to “We”, and our “shared history”, and fellow feeling and humanity, and the horrors of seeing the weak die before your very eyes as chaos engulfs our civil relations, will fall on deaf ears.

    People will simply conclude that the game and some of the other players, are no longer worth the candle. And from the point of self interest, they might be right.

  55. O Clever Man!
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/21/how-the-obama-administration-weaponized-surveillance-laws-to-target-trump/

    O Clever Men!
    https://dailycaller.com/2020/05/20/christopher-steele-michael-flynn-svetlana-lokhova-cambridge/

    O No-Malarkey Man!
    (AKA Andrew Weissmann in a Joe Biden fundraiser. Gosh, who ever woulda thunk it….)
    https://twitter.com/MZHemingway/status/1263505581844893701

    I think we’ve arrived at the point where there is nothing anymore to hide or to be ashamed of, since the Utter Demonization of Donald Trump is now complete.
    A fait accompli.

    The 24/7 Hate has performed admirably.
    All those who rushed out to buy “1984” following Trump’s election in 2016 have studied it exceeding well and have implemented its multitude of lessons to the letter. And then some.

    The dragon’s teeth are sown.

    Time to reap…

  56. Barry Meislin:

    For such an “incompetent” Sidney seems to get results for her client (Yah!) Who could have foreseen such a development? 😉

  57. Barry – almost too much to read on the story these days, isn’t there?
    Once Grenell broke the log-jam of Super-duper-top-secret-self-serving redactions, a lot of things are getting looked at again.

    First is some further information on how breaching lawyer-client privilege for Manafort probably encouraged Flynn’s lawyers to rat him out.
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/05/21/waitsomeone-leaked-a-fake-story-about-manafort-being-under-a-fisa-warrant-to-break-his-attorneyclient-privlege-n2569240
    “Undercover Huber has lobbed a new allegation of extreme malfeasance against the Special Counsel Office’s (SCO) investigation: it leaked a fake story about Paul Manafort being under a FISA warrant to eviscerate his attorney-client privilege in order to get his lawyer to divulge anything relating to him being a possible Russian agent to the grand jury. The goal, of course, was to find something major on President Trump. These ruthless tactics are also what caused Flynn’s lawyers at the time to push for the plea deal, as they didn’t want to be turned into legal sashimi by the SCO. The FISA warrant against Manafort was a dud. It never happened.”

    Then there’s that dossier guy again.
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/05/21/fbi-offered-trump-dossier-author-big-money-to-target-michael-flynn-n2569203

    And finally, maybe the Judge just makes up his mind according to the last thing he reads in the papers.
    I knew about the op-ed; the news is how the authors are connected to the new judicial-prosecutor-amicus Sullivan appointed.
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2020/05/21/did-the-flynn-judge-refuse-to-toss-the-bogus-case-against-him-because-of-a-washington-post-oped-n2569237
    “Another interesting tidbit is that Gleeson works for a law firm that represented Sally Yates, the acting AG who was fired for refusing to defend one of Trump’s executive orders. Yates is the first resister and one of the key people who was given marching orders from Obama to protect the FBI investigation into Russian collusion. … he Washington Post op-ed who channeled a Yogi Berra mindset with this case was co-written by David O’Neil, who also works with Gleeson at the same law firm defending DOJ resister-in-chief Yates. This op-ed dropped on May 11. Sullivan tapped Gleeson to be the ringmaster for this legal circus’ final act on May 13.”

    (PS AesopSpouse wondered yesterday who was paying for the amicus’s work — it definitely should not come out of any public trough.)

  58. DNW says “The consensus now appears to be that Sullivan is exploring charging Flynn with criminal contempt of court for perjury in a plea deal, not for perjury as it might have been understood by most readers initially.”

    Ah! Of course a plea agreement has an “under penalty of perjury” clause in it. Perhaps multiple ones. But your claim is this issue has not been adjudicated before? Or that there may be grounds to re-open this question? Sullivan’s legalistic route is clear enough to someone?

    There’s been a lot of fast coming news. Thanks to Barry and Aesop for sharing their findings with us here, Thursday.

  59. So how many people here knew about this and when did they know it…

    GB, it’s why the American republic is dead. Precisely as you quoted twice.

    It’s also why I didn’t react positively to people here telling others to Obey the Police back a few years ago. I thought that was rather… naive. It’s not about traffick laws or other laws. It’s about the actual problem of a police state and its institutions, institutions created by Americans giving up their power to the Deep State. Now the slaves want their power back? Doesn’t work that way, now does it LockDown Livestock…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>