Are General Flynn’s Prosecutors Panicking? by Larry C Johnson

Larry Johnson-5x7

The short answer to the title of this article–YES!! Michael Flynn’s new lawyer, Sidney Powell, is a honey badger. If you do not know anything about honey badgers I encourage you to watch the documentary, Honey Badgers, Master’s of Mayhem. They tear the testicles off of lions. And it sure looks like Ms. Powell is emasculating prosecutor Andrew Weisman.

Last Friday, August 30th, Sidney Powell filed a brief with the District Court in the District of Columbia laying out in exquisite detail the misconduct of the Mueller prosecutors, who have withheld exculpatory evidence. The document is still behind a pay wall (Pacer). But let me share with you some of the salient points of this filing:

The government’s most stunning suppression of evidence is perhaps the text messages of Peter Srzok and Lisa Page. In July of 2017, (now over two years ago), the Inspector General of the Department of Justice advised Special Counsel of the extreme bias in the now infamous text messages of these two FBI employees. Mr. Van Grack did not produce a single text messages to the defense until March 13, 2018, when he gave them a link to then-publicly available messages.14

Mr. Van Grack and Ms. Ahmad, among other things, did not disclose that FBI Agent Strzok had been fired from the Special Counsel team as its lead agent almost six months earlier because of his relationship with Deputy Director McCabe’s Counsel—who had also been on the Special Counsel team—and because of their text messages and conduct. One would think that more than a significant subset of those messages had to have been shared by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice with Special Counsel to warrant such a high-level and immediate personnel change. Indeed, Ms. Page left the Department of Justice because of her conduct, and Agent Strzok was terminated from the FBI because of it.

Likewise, the prosecutors did not produce evidence of Weissmann’s and Ahmad’s relationship and work with Bruce Ohr on transmitting the corrupt information to the FBI, and the numerous 302s resulting from the interviews of Bruce Ohr by the second agent.

The Government’s misconduct was not limited to General Flynn. Ms. Powell describes in detail how the Government lied in another case related to General Flynn:

In yet another recent demonstration of egregious government misconduct, the government completely changed the meaning of exculpatory information in a declassified version of a report—by omitting the word “not.” This case, involving Adam Lovinger, is related to issues involving Mr. Flynn, as Mr. Lovinger was wrongly charged (and secretly cleared) after blowing the whistle on the fraudulent payments to FBI/CIA/DOD operative Stefan Halper—a central figure in the government’s targeting and intelligence abuses of the last several years— including against Mr. Flynn.

Mr. Lovinger had been an analyst at the Pentagon for more than ten years when he was detailed to the White House at then-National Security Advisor Flynn’s request. Mr. Lovinger voiced concerns internally regarding the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment for prioritizing academic reports (one of which was written by Stefan Halper) at the expense of real threat assessments. He was recalled to the Pentagon, accused of mishandling sensitive information, stripped of his security clearance, and suspended. As it turned out, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service conducted a thorough examination of his electronic devices, but “[a]gents found no evidence he leaked to the press, as charged, or that he was a counterintelligence risk.

Even though the investigation exonerated Mr. Lovinger of these charges a full month before Mr. Lovinger’s hearing, the government did not reveal to Mr. Lovinger’s attorneys that this investigation occurred.17 Even worse, the declassified version of the NCIS left out a crucial “not”. It read that the investigation “did yield any classified or sensitive information,”18 when the truth was the investigation “did not yield any classified or sensitive information.”19 The declassified version omitted the word “not.”

Got that? The Mueller prosecutors lied about what the investigation of Mr. Lovinger concluded. He did NOT, repeat NOT, “yield any classified or sensitive information. ” But Mueller’s team of hacks, disgraceful pieces of excrement, took out the word, “NOT”.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Sidney Powell filed her document on Friday night (30 August). She also submitted a sealed portion detailing how the Mueller team has lied about the evidence. I have seen one of the affidavits she filed. I will not say who or what it contained other than to expose specific details how Michael Flynn’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated. But the prosecutors ran immediately to Adam Goldman of the New York Times as leaked this sealed information.

Adam wrote an article the same day and “reported” the following:

Lawyers for Michael T. Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser, escalated their attacks on prosecutors on Friday, recycling unfounded conspiratorial accusations in a last-ditch bid to delay his sentencing in a case in which he has twice admitted guilt.

The move could anger Emmet G. Sullivan, the federal judge who will sentence Mr. Flynn. The filings could magnify any doubts by Judge Sullivan about whether Mr. Flynn truly accepts responsibility for his crime of lying to the F.B.I. and whether he fulfilled his cooperation agreement with the government in one of the lingering cases brought by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

In a pair of filings, Mr. Flynn’s lawyers made clear that they view him as a victim of prosecutorial misconduct, amplifying right-wing theories about a so-called deep state of government bureaucrats working to undermine President Trump. The defense lawyers accused prosecutors of engaging in “pernicious” conduct in Mr. Flynn’s case, saying they had been “manipulating or controlling the press to their advantage to extort that plea.”

Yet, when you read the full filing by Ms. Powell, not a single “unfounded conspiratorial accusation” is discussed. The prosecutors gave that protected information to Goldman.

Worse, the prosecutors gave Goldman information from the NSA intercepts of Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador. So far, the Mueller team of miscreants have refused to turn over this material to Michael Flynn’s lawyer. But they shared it with Goldman, who wrote:

“We must have access to that information to represent our client consistently with his constitutional rights and our ethical obligations,” Mr. Flynn’s lawyers wrote.

The classified transcripts of the calls make clear that the two men discussed sanctions at length and that Mr. Flynn was highly unlikely to have forgotten those details when questioned by the F.B.I., several former United States officials familiar with the documents have said. It was clear, the officials said, that sanctions were the only thing Mr. Flynn wanted to talk about with Mr. Kislyak.

Mr. Flynn’s lawyers also suggested in the filing that the government had exculpatory material, but it is not clear if they consider the transcripts to be that material. Some conservatives have embraced a theory that Mr. Flynn’s nonchalance in the F.B.I. interview, which agents documented because it seemed at odds with how blatantly he was lying, was exonerating.

How in the hell does Goldman know what is in those “transcripts”? He was told.

But there is a broader, more important point–Michael Flynn’s conversation with the Russian Ambassador was not illegal. It was not improper. He could discuss whatever he wanted to discuss as the incoming National Security Advisor for Donald Trump. This was a false claim by the Mueller Prosecutors.

If the Mueller team, what is left of it, was confident of their position, they would not have leaked this story to the New York Times hack, Goldman. This is a sign of desperation and panic.

Knowing what we know about Judge Sullivan, who is in charge of the Michael Flynn case, he is likely to be furious by this bald lying by Mueller’s hacks.

Should be an interesting week ahead. Sidney Powell will probably be feasting on a heaping plate of prosecutor balls. Like the Honey Badger, she is ripping them a new one.

This entry was posted in Larry Johnson, Russiagate. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Are General Flynn’s Prosecutors Panicking? by Larry C Johnson

  1. Factotum says:

    Year of the Woman finally finds the right woman. I’m with her.

  2. Jack says:

    What were Flynn’s previous attorneys doing? They got him to cop the plea deal.

  3. They were incompetents. They should be sued for malpractice and disbarred. They helped serve up General Flynn and he trusted them. That’s now water under the bridge. Sidney Powell is a force to be reckoned with.

  4. ex PFC Chuck says:

    On another front of the Russiagate affair, per a Monsieur America Twitter thread, Loretta Lynch in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee has absolved herself of any involvement in the FISA warrant on Carter Page.

  5. Don Schmeling says:

    They might have been too scared of what Mueller would do to them if they put up a good case for Flynn.
    I think the same thing happened to George Popadopoulos who had his lawyers roll over and play dead before Meuller.
    You need to find Lawyers who are not afraid of the system, or are in bed with the system.

  6. Fred says:

    Now the rats are throwing their subordinates under the sinking ship. Good to know the grandma AG had time to meet Hillary’s husband on the tarmac but no time to be briefed about “foreign interference” in our election. I can’t wait to hear Obama’s excuse.

  7. Ghost Ship says:

    did yield any classified or sensitive information

    Logically just doesn’t make sense – it’s almost as if the person editing the NCIS report decided he didn’t like doing what he asked to do and produced a piece of text that only really made sense with a “not” in it. Either that, or he was actually an idiot.

  8. Factotum says:

    The “confession” they got Papadopolus to sign made no sense and almost looked like it had been altered after Papadopolus had already signed his name. There were a series of very disjointed and irrelevant statements of facts, to which Papadopolus agreed they were factual.
    Then pow at the very end was basically a confession he had violated the Logan Act.
    None of the prior statements supported this conclusion, but as the cherry on top of his “confession” was the claim he engaged in policy level discussions with the very highest Russian higher ups while Obama was still President. (Was he ever in this role – hard to remember?).
    That always struck me as a very weird “confession – but there is was with Papadolopus’s signature on it, and accepted by the deep state investigating authorities.
    This “confession” deserves a re-read in light of what we are learning now about the set-up and ambush mentality of the deep state “investigators.

  9. MP98 says:

    Flynn may have been set up and lied to right and left, BUT…
    how did he get three stars?
    He comes across in this as a victim and a dummy.
    He should have known that the FBI NEVER interviews people honestly.
    The agents told him that he didn’t need a lawyer so he didn’t call one.
    That’s just massive stupid.
    Cops I know have told me to NEVER talk to police without a lawyer present.
    How come the former head of the DIA didn’t know that?

  10. JamesT says:

    Or the mangled language was used to let them claim it was accidental … “gosh, we just made an honest mistake”.

  11. jd hawkins says:

    I’m in your ‘Amen’ corner on this.

  12. Keith Harbaugh says:

    Sidney Powell has some competition, from Devin Nunes, in taking the gloves off:
    “HPSCI Member Devin Nunes Files Lawsuit Against Fusion-GPS Claiming Racketeering and Conspiracy…”

    The Nunes lawsuit alleges Fusion GPS participated in racketeering and conspiracy smear campaign [of] Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee;
    in an attempt to impede the committee investigation of coordination between the Clinton campaign, Fusion GPS and the FBI.

  13. Keith Harbaugh says:

    The 2019-08-30 brief filed by Sydney Powell is available freely from Scribd in a link provided in:
    “Judge Sullivan Will First Rule on Brady Allegations in Flynn Case…” (by sundance 2019-09-05)
    To see the brief directly, click on

  14. Fred says:

    Marcy is really upset Flynn’s lawyers say they are not available on the 10th and seems to have forgotten that talking to foreign ambassadors is not illegal.

  15. Marcy is not a smart person. Passionate, but not bright. Instead of objective analysis she opts for partisan screeds.

  16. Thanks for the link Larry. Finally read Marcy’s post. She is a moron. She apparently did not read Sydney Powell’s brief and Sundance, over at The Conservative Treehouse, provided an excellent analysis of the Judge’s decision. Marcy apparently does not know (or forgot) the role Sullivan played in sanctioning Weismann in the Enron case. She also failed to remember or mention the sanctions imposed on DOJ prosecutors for Brady violations in the Ted Stevens case. Powell will meet with the Judge en camera. She could not be more wrong.

  17. Larry Kart says:

    Before we characterize Ms. Wheeler as a “moron,” perhaps we should wait and see how Judge Sullivan responds to Sidney Powell’s brief and how he rules in the Flynn case in general.

  18. You don’t have to wait for Judge Sullivan to know that Marcy is a moron. Did you even read the Sidney Powell brief? I don’t think so. If you had, you would quickly appreciate that Marcy’s so-called critique had nothing to do with the damn brief. Neither you nor Marcy appear to have the intellectual integrity to take on the substance of the Powell memo. That both angers and frustrates me.

  19. Larry Kart says:

    A preceding post from Wheeler that goes into much more detail about what she sees as the flaws in Sidney Powell’s brief.
    Have I read Powell’s brief? I haven’t pored over it — after a certain point I decided that my ability to do so would be compromised because I’m not a lawyer at all, nor one who is versed in constitutional law, nor have I been following Flynn’s case in detail, though I believe that Wheeler has. But even though my ability to critique the substance of Powell’s brief is admittedly quite limited, based on Wheeler’s long track record, going back to the days of the Scooter Libby trial, I believe that Wheeler has that ability.
    In any event, again, I await Judge Sullivan’s response to Powell’s brief and his eventual rulings in the Flynn case. If Wheeler (and by implication I) then end up with egg on your faces, so be it.

  20. Larry Kart says:

    Sorry — I meant to say “with egg on OUR faces.”

  21. I’ve known Marcy for many years. She does not have that ability. Nothing in her article reflects what is in the Powell brief. Please, I challenge you, show me just one point in the Powell brief that Marcy refutes. I’ll save you time–you won’t find it. The brief filed in public was accompanied by material that is sealed. I’ve read two of those submissions. They are based totally on fact, not opinion. As I pointed out in my piece above, the Powell brief delved heavily into previous prosecutorial misconduct and then showed how the prosecutors in the Flynn case are engaged in the same kind of wrong conduct. I’ve always referred to Marcy as Empty Head. She plays a lawyer but has not been involved in any significant litigation. This is not about trying to show who has egg on their face. Take my arguments and show me a counter argument. Marcy’s contribution is entirely based on her “feelings” about how Judge Sullivan “feels”. How is that a legal argument?

  22. Larry Kart says:

    I cannot meet your challenge, for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post. Again, I await Judge Sullivan’s response to Powell’s brief and his further eventual rulings in the Flynn case. It seems to me that neither Powell, nor you, nor I, nor Marcy but Judge Sullivan is the ultimate legal authority/expert here — barring possible appeals to a higher court of course.
    P.S. regarding Marcy’s bona fides or lack of same, I judge them in much the same way I have responded to those of Col. Lang over the years. In the latter case, I myself lack military expertise and an insider’s knowledge of the workings of the D.C. bureaucracy, nor do I have more than a cursory background in the civilizations and politics of the Middle East. However, the Colonel over the years, drawing upon his knowledge of all those things and more, consistently analyzes what has happened, what is happening right now, and above all predicts what is likely to happen down the road. His track record in the final category is, if not the only test, one of the best tests imaginable, and it is one that he consistently passes with flying colors. I have applied the same standard to Marcy over many years now and have seldom been disappointed.

Comments are closed.