More Panic from Flynn Prosecutors? by Larry C Johnson

Larry Johnson-5x7

A few weeks back I wrote about Honey Badger Sidney Powell’s legal brief demanding Brady material, i.e., information that is possibly exculpatory that must be turned over to the defendant and his legal team. The Prosecutors (Jenny Liu, Brandon Van Grack and Jocelyn Ballantine) submitted their response and, instead of a measured, well-reasoned brief they opted for outrage, anger, stone walling and obfuscation. Most importantly, they admit that the Government did not believe General Flynn lied. Let me repeat that with emphasis–THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT BELIEVE GENERAL FLYNN LIED. But, despite that material fact, the Government charged Flynn with lying and coerced him into signing a plea in order to keep the Feds from ruining his son.

This is the type of tyranny that led my ancestors to take up arms and fight the Brits and kick their ass out of the United States.

Let me take you through some of the key passages of the Government response:

Michael T. Flynn entered a plea of guilty to a single count of knowingly and willfully making material false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) regarding his contacts with the Government of Russia’s Ambassador to the United States (“Russian Ambassador”) during an interview with the FBI on January 24, 2017, Prior to his guilty plea, the government provided to the defendant information that could arguably be construed as exculpatory to that offense. The defendant subsequently waived any right to additional discovery, as part of his guilty plea.. . . The Court found that the defendant’s earlier guilty plea was entered “knowingly, voluntarily, intelligently, and with fulsome and satisfactory advice of counsel.”

Allow me to translate. Michael Flynn was represented by incompetent (and possibly corrupt) lawyers who did not press for the Brady material they were entitled to. The prosecutors argument is simple–Flynn pled guilty and he cannot recant.

Hold on their cowboy. Sidney Powell was asked by Judge Sullian why did Flynn accept the plea and Honey Badger came armed, like a good honey badger, with claws primed to tear the testicles off of an arrogant lion. Sundance at The Conservative Tree House succinctly summarizes her reply:

As highlighted, Michael Flynn–under pressure from Mueller’s prosecutors–signed a plea to avoid his son, Mike Flynn Jr., being indicted/accused.  As we suspected General Flynn signed a plea deal to avoid seeing his son charged with a fabricated FARA violation. . . .

Mueller’s corrupt prosecutors used legally sketchy FARA violations, and threats therein, against many of their targets. Those tenuous legal theories have now been dispatched in two separate cases: Bijan Rafiekian (Flynn Intel Group), and Greg Craig (Obama White House). [Additionally the DOJ dropped the FARA investigation of Tony Podesta and Vin Weber for the same reasons.]

As a result of prior cases showing malicious prosecutions under false FARA pretenses, Flynn’s defense doesn’t have to try and convince Judge Sullivan that Michael Flynn and Mike Flynn Jr. were being threatened by those same heavy-handed DOJ tactics. It is now self-evident those tactics were deployed; the prosecution would be silly to try and deny their threats were present.

Let us return to the Government response to Ms. Powell’s brief:

The defendant predicates much of his request on conspiracy theories, demanding that the government engage in a fishing expedition for documents that could offer support for those theories. Irrespective of whether such documents exist, a fact that the government does not concede here, the defendant fails to establish that such information is relevant—let alone favorable and material—in this criminal case.

This is just a damnable lie. At no point in her Brady brief did Sidney Powell reference any “conspiracy” theory. I think psychiatrists call this self-projection (i.e., Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings.)

Sidney Powell’s Brady brief, in my opinion, is a demand that the Government produce documents showing that they knew Michael Flynn had not lied but charged him anyway for “lying.” What is amazing is that the Government response admits this key point:

the government informed defense counsel that DAD Strzok said that the defendant had a sure demeanor and did not give any indicators of deception during the January 24 interview, and that both of the interviewing agents had the impression at the time that the defendant was not lying or did not think he was lying.

Is that clear enough for you Trump haters? Strzok and his partner DID NOT THINK FLYNN LIED.

Honest prosecutors would not have accepted a plea of guilty for lying. But that is exactly what they did. This is prosecutorial misconduct. Too bad I don’t have a bag of coal. The prosecutors are standing before Judge Emmet Sullivan who absolutely hates prosecutorial misconduct. If you shoved that coal up the anal canal of each of these prosecutors you would get diamonds (intense pressure can turn coal into diamonds). Honey Badger is fighting for justice. Do not underestimate her.

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

20 Responses to More Panic from Flynn Prosecutors? by Larry C Johnson

  1. John Merryman says:

    The reason we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men, is that laws presumably withstand the test of time.

  2. MP98 says:

    We are only a nation of “laws” that the Democrat-media party like.
    It is obvious that there are 2 sets of laws – one for the swamp, another for the rest of us.

  3. Vig says:

    Wasn’t Peter Strzok one of the bad guys anyway? A Trump Hater?

  4. Meanwhile on another, but related front, listen to Giuliani here. Been to Ukraine e and came back with a fistful of affidavits on Ukr involvement in Steele Dossier and Biden corruption. Is the dam finally starting to burst?
    (go to 09:15 for the summary)

  5. Flavius says:

    Outrageous government overreach from stem to stern, foreshadowed in kind but never equaled in the past for the sheer mass of time, resources, and manpower devoted to bringing one man down, Trump, by any means necessary for one reason: he is not one of their own. If the historians of the future can’t find it within themselves to call these rabid dogs to account for this tyrannical abuse of power, the United States as a nation will have been struck dumb and will exist as Republic only in name. Government of the government, by the government, and for the government, with no restraints.

  6. h says:

    These are some fighting words “Honest prosecutors would not have accepted a plea of guilty for lying. But that is exactly what they did. This is prosecutorial misconduct. Too bad I don’t have a bag of coal. The prosecutors are standing before Judge Emmet Sullivan who absolutely hates prosecutorial misconduct. If you shoved that coal up the anal canal of each of these prosecutors you would get diamonds (intense pressure can turn coal into diamonds). Honey Badger is fighting for justice. Do not underestimate her.” Love it!!!
    Honey Badger aka Sidney Powell sat down with Bill Marshall of Judicial Watch for a short interview recently Thinking some of your readers might appreciate to learn who she is and what drives her. Great interview!
    It will indeed be interesting to learn how Judge Sullivan manages these latest filings by gov and Powell. Something tells me that there are going to be some fireworks in his courtroom.
    My sincere hope is Sullivan rules in favor of Powell’s brief and then drops all charges. I don’t know if that can be legally achieved but if it can, Lt Gen Flynn is most deserving of securing ALL Brady material in this case. It would appear Flynn has been under FISA surveillance since at least before joining the Trump campaign. He certainly deserves to know why, for how long and if he’s still under FBI surveillance.
    Oh, I’d also add that I’d like to see him return to gov’t service. Something tells me he’d make a great swamp drainer…

  7. PavewayIV says:

    Which makes laws and the lawmaking process the perfect target for subtle usurpation by eager psychopaths. Once they’re broken enough, the psychopaths own the place. What are the people going to do – vote their way out of it?
    We can’t say we (the U.S.) were not warned about this happening. Some old, dead guys, Federalist papers, etc.

  8. Barbara Ann says:

    It won’t be left to future historians, the calling to account must and will be done now.

  9. pogohere says:

    Re: Withholding evidence from the defense
    A Cautionary Tale: The Ted Stevens Prosecution
    From Washington Lawyer, October 2009
    On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. “In nearly 25 years on the bench,” he said, “I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.”
    It was the culmination of a disastrous prosecution: the public corruption case against former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).
    . . .
    Judge Sullivan ordered full discovery on Joy’s whistleblower status [FBI Special Agent Chad Joy filed a whistleblower complaint stating that prosecutors tried to hide a witness and intentionally withheld evidence from defense lawyers.]. The Justice Department then made yet another error—prosecutors only handed the discovery to the judge, not the defense.
    “That was a court order. That wasn’t a request,” Judge Sullivan said at a February 13 hearing. “I didn’t ask for them out of the kindness of your hearts….Isn’t the Department of Justice taking court orders seriously these days?”
    Judge Sullivan then held Morris, Welch, and Patricia Stemler, chief of the Criminal Division’s Appellate Section, in contempt of court for failing to follow the court order to turn over documents.
    At this point, the Justice Department removed its prosecutors from the case and assigned a new team, which found additional evidence that had never been handed to the defense.
    April Fools
    On April Fools’ Day, U.S. Attorney General Holder announced that the Justice Department would move to dismiss the indictment “in the interest of justice.”
    “After careful review, I have concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense for use at trial,” Holder said in a statement.

  10. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Rudy made some hay years back using the Racketeering-Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. He needs a Conspiratorially-Lying Intelligence Operatives Network (CLIntON) Act. Catchy.

  11. ex PFC Chuck says:

    If your wished-for scenario were to play out, perhaps some of the legal beagles who hang out here could address the question of whether Gen. Flynn might have a winnable case if he sues the DoJ and/or the individual prosecutors for malicious prosecution?

  12. Fred says:

    Lawsuits sound like a fine American tradition. They’ll have a real hard time bringing in hearsay evidence.

  13. blue peacock says:

    The ball is going to be firmly in Judge Sullivan’s court. What’s he gonna decide?
    One way it goes is that the the plea deal is thrown out which the DOJ may not care so much. The other is that Judge Sullivan orders the DOJ to produce unredacted copies of all the documents. That may not be so good for the DOJ who may have much to hide.

  14. J says:

    Brennan is once again flapping his gums.
    Too bad somebody can’t find a dirty sock and stuff it in Brennan’s mouth.

  15. Diana C says:

    The laws that are written were written by humans. The motives of those humans in writing the laws can be good or not so good.
    What is important is that the humans who write and enforce laws written by other humans should have some good moral law they depend on in writing and enforcing the laws.
    The people Larry feels were/are acting unfairly and actually vindictively have not understood some of the long-standing philosophical moral laws. The one I always turn to is the one expressed by Kant: People are not means to an end; they are ends in themselves.
    Flynn’s life as a human is not something that should be viewed as a simple means to their evil end game.
    The people who allowed Flynn to be used as a pawn are immoral, no matter what they think their “good” purpose was for persecuting him.
    We don’t need to argue legalities at all. Our county was founded by people who valued the individual human above all. (Read our founding documents.)
    The people who prosecuted Flynn saw him only as a pawn in their political game. To me, that makes them despicable and I don’t have to pick apart legal strategies or arguments. I just see their evil motive and the evil they accomplished by pursuing that motive: the ruination of one man, a man who by the accounts of the people who have known him was/is an honorable man and father, who served our country well.

  16. Jack says:

    Well said Diana.
    The pursuit of power and great personal wealth is now the driving force of the elites. This leads to the ends justify the means. It is their contempt for the “suckers” who believe in honor that further fuels their depravity.

  17. turcopolier says:

    Yes, the idiot Jesse Watters recently said that “people only do things for money.” He holds all those who serve in contempt.

  18. Factotum says:

    A possible Bivens violation that overrides federal immunities from prosecution?
    Bivens vs Six Unknown Agents:
    The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Brennan, laid down a rule that it will infer a private right of action for monetary damages where no other federal remedy is provided for the vindication of a constitutional right, based on the principle that for every wrong, there is a remedy. The court reasoned based upon a presumption that where there is a violation of a right, the plaintiff can recover whatever he could recover under any civil action, unless Congress has expressly curtailed that right of recovery, or there exist some “special factors counseling hesitation”.

  19. Keith Harbaugh says:

    During this hiatus between
    the DOJ filing its rebuttal (41-page PDF) to Sidney Powell’s “Motion to Compel” (14-page PDF) and
    Powell filing her rebuttal to the DOJ’s rebuttal
    is a good time to give a high-level view of the whole legal Flynn situation.
    Three issues are paramount:

    1. Why did the FBI want to interview Flynn on 2016-01-24 in the first place?
    2. Why did Flynn lie during that interview?
    3. Why did Flynn plead guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI?

    To put those issues in proper perspective,
    it is necessary to start with the second item:
    2) Why did Flynn lie?
    The key is to recall the situation he was in at the time.
    The media in general, and WaPo in particular, were overflowing in the days after Trump’s election
    with leaks of highly classified material, all of which were being frantically spun by the MSM as, supposedly, evidence of Trump’s associates “colluding” with Russia.
    Flynn could practically guarantee that, whatever he said to the FBI, was going to be leaked straight to the Washington Post, where it would be spun in the worst (and least accurate) way possible.
    In effect, he was being interviewed by the Washington Post!
    Can anyone seriously deny that?
    In that situation, he was in a lose/lose situation.
    Tell the truth, and see whatever he said appear on the front page of the next day’s Washington Post,
    or prevaricate, or at least not tell the whole truth, and take the consequences.
    He chose the latter. Can anyone (other than the “get Trump” crowd) really blame him?
    Look, if could have assumed that whatever he said to the FBI would be kept confidential, as used to be the case and still SHOULD have been the case, then the usual obligation to tell the truth would have held.
    But what if that assumption was no longer valid?
    I think it clearly was no longer valid.
    So I put the blame in this situation right on those who were violating their oaths to keep secrets.
    1) Why did the FBI want to interview Flynn on 2016-01-24 in the first place?
    Surely they did not need to know what he had said in his conversations with Russian ambassador Kislyak.
    They already had the transcripts of that.
    No, the only plausible explanation (is there another?) was to put Flynn in the lose/lose situation described above.
    If not that, then what was their motivation?
    3) Why did Flynn plead guilty to lying to the FBI?
    No doubt there were a number of factors, not least of which was the now-well-documented threat to prosecute Flynn’s son on basically trumped-up charges.
    Even if Flynn Jr. would eventually have been able to be exonerated,
    the expense of mounting the necessary defense would have been great,
    and likely beyond his ability to pay.
    So Flynn Sr. fell on his sword to protect his son.
    But I suspect there was another factor.
    Flynn’s then-counsels, Covington & Burling, were not able or willing to mount the kind of defense that was, in my view, appropriate, namely,
    claiming the mitigating circumstances mentioned above,
    or at least did not suggest such a defense to Flynn as a possibility.
    They were too much part of the Washington establishment to want to make such a defense;
    it would have meant expulsion from “the club”.
    Of course, his current counsel, Sidney Powell, is going all-out to mount such a defense.
    (She’s clearly not part of the club.)
    But C&B were not, and Flynn accepted their counsel to just go along with the charade.

  20. R J says:

    Just goes to show how screwed you are if the government comes after you.I have never believed that Flynn did anything wrong he was just the first one they started on they the government thought they were going to railroad Trump out of office and the general was the first step.This man has been screwed over so bad after being in the Army all those years wonder what he thinks now?I would be one bitter SOB about now if i were in his shoes they ruined just like the communists would do .

Comments are closed.