Flynn case update:— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) January 7, 2020
DOJ reverses prior recommendation and asks that Flynn be incarcerated for 0-6 months.
They previously asked for no jail time. pic.twitter.com/kbDoh86K0u
DOJ takes back its previous position that Flynn substantially assisted the Gov't.— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) January 7, 2020
December 2018: Flynn provided substantial assistance.
January 2020: Flynn "has not substantially assisted the Government." pic.twitter.com/ovmeeL05GG
This part of the government memo is rather remarkable:
Prosecutors noted in a Tuesday filing that while Flynn "has sought to assist and aid the government," there were periods "where the defendant has sought to thwart the efforts of the government to hold other individuals, principally Bijan Rafiekian, accountable for criminal wrongdoing."
Recall that the jury verdict against Rafiekian was tossed by the trial judge. According to that judge:
“The evidence was insufficient as a matter of law for the jury to convict Rafiekian on either count”
The Government “failed to offer substantial evidence” that Rafiekian acted as an agent of a foreign government”
“There is no substantial evidence” that he agreed to cooperate subject to the direction/control of Turkey; no evidence of any implied agreement w/ Turkey.
Naturally Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell, should take strong exception to the claim that Flynn should be punished for failing to assist a prosecution that was thrown out as insufficient as a matter of law.
Reminder: Flynn was cooperating with the Gov't's FARA violation case against Rafikian right up until the moment the corrupt prosecutors directed him to lie under oath.— RussiaGate Was 100% Fake SpyGate Is 100% Real (@drawandstrike) January 7, 2020
NEW per Flynn attorney @SidneyPowell1 : "The government seeks to punish Mr. Flynn for telling the truth when it wasn’t what the prosecutors wanted to hear. This is outrageous."#michaelflynn https://t.co/gjXUXqjitF— Brooke Singman (@brookefoxnews) January 7, 2020
Putting General Flynn in jail may just be the kind of stupid move that lights a fire.ReplyDelete
If it came to be, do you think Trump would pardon him?
If there's any one president who would do a controversial (in the MSM) pardon during an election year it would be Trump. I'd prefer it didn't come to that, but to be honest I don't know what can be done short of that. An AG is unlikely to interfere in a local trial, and Flynn pled guilty in the District of Columbia after the case was transferred there from Team Mueller.Delete
Does this gov't filing--reading between the lines--suggest the expectation that Flynn would supply the (cooperation) testimonial evidence to convict Rafiekian? (IIRC, Flynn wasn't called as a witness.)ReplyDelete
Flynn's case has certainly involved some puzzling turns...
Did Flynn refuse to testify against Rafiekian?Delete
Rafiekian WAS convicted--by the jury. The judge overturned the verdict as insufficient in law. The statement of the government here is merely that Flynn "sought to thwart" the government's case against Rafiekian--not that he is withholding important evidence.Delete
The biggest problem is Flynn's guilty plea.
Rafiekian's case was tossed by the judge on the grounds that the government hadn't proven that Rafiekian had knowingly acted as an agent of the Turkish government. All Flynn was expected to do by the govnernment was to testify that the Flynn Intel Group, of which Rafiekian was a partner, had knowingly filed false FARA registrations. Flynn objected to this. If I rememeber correctly, the supposedly false part was about knowing who Alptekin worked for, and nothing I have seen in the subsequent trial proved that Rafiekian and Flynn knew that Alptekin worked for the Turkish government, and I haven't seen actual evidence that Alptekin did work for the Turkish govenrment.Delete
Mike, Flynn did NOT refuse to testify. The government decided not to call. The reason for that is explained in detail here: A Change Of Direction For Michael Flynn.Delete
"Flynn previously claimed that he lied on FARA forms that he submitted to DoJ in the case involving Bijan Kian. Flynn is now saying that his former lawyers were the ones at fault for filing those forms with false or inaccurate information in them--that he did not knowingly do so."
Flynn is now saying that his former lawyers were the ones at fault for filing those forms with false or inaccurate information in them -- that he did not knowingly do so."Delete
Some of Flynn's actions are very puzzling. He was a three-star general, so he wasn't stupid or lazy.
Flynn now faces a choice- the choice he should have faced up to 2 years ago- keep his plea or seek to withdraw it.ReplyDelete
That's the size of it. The plea was a big mistake. In effect, Flynn lied to the court under oath by claiming he was guilty, if he didn't believe that. So either way he lied about something. One has to feel for him in that situation, with his son being threatened, but lying isn't the way out.Delete
Flynn's attorney should argue that Flynn's lies to the court (that he was guilty of lying) were suborned by prosecutors, who were holding Flynn's son "hostage" to ruinous criminal prosecution, and aided and abetted by his original counsel, who having created a conflict of interest by filing the retroactive FARA on behalf of the Flynn Group that contained inaccurate information, advised him to plead guilty to a crime he did not commit, in part because it relieved the law firm of embarrassment for the inaccurate FARA filing it created.Delete
That's already been done.Delete
One problem that DOJ/FBI will have in this situation is that most people do not agree that DOJ/FBI officials (e.g. Andrew McCabe) can lie but never be prosecuted.ReplyDelete
Most people will think that the laws should apply to DOJ/FBI officials too.
Unfortunately, that won't be an argument that Flynn can make in court.Delete
I do not understand how our judicial system would allow a prosecutor to make a deal with one defendant in order to give relief to another potential defendant who is related to them. It is nothing less than legal extortion. How many parents would lie to save the lives of their kids? For that reason, any plea made under these circumstances should not be considered a reliable pleading.ReplyDelete
And what if these attorneys knew this plea to be false? They would be guilty of suborning perjury.
All true. That's what I meant when I referred to judges living in a fantasy world, pretending that everything that happens before them is on the up and up, that anyone who falsely pleads guilty has only themselves to blame.Delete
Before I forget; IIRC that a draft of the Flynn plea agreement, prepared by prosecutors, contained an admission that he was part of a conspiracy to file a false FARA filing. Flynn balked at that stipulation, and prosecutors agreed to withdraw it from the final plea agreement to which Flynn agreed.Delete
This demonstrates that prosecutors were well aware long before the Rafakian trial that Flynn didn't agree with their theory that there was a conspiracy to file a false FARA registration, and thus had no legal basis on which to expect him to testify that there WAS!
The prosecutors tried to steam roll him when they needed false testimony at the Rafakian trial, and Flynn rightfully declined, as his plea agreement contained no such stipulation of the existence of such a conspiracy.
"judges living in a fantasy world", or, being BLACKMAILed by Feds armed with dirt, gotten from a "two-step" FISA warrant.ReplyDelete
See CTH reader Bryan Alexander today, at 3:38 pm, in the post about "Bill Barr DOJ Recommends Prison For Michael Flynn…".
This is interesting:ReplyDelete
Rafiekian trial judge took DOJ to task for NOT requesting financial data from Turkey.
But Flynn prosecutors would have the judge in HIS case believe the failure of the Rafiekian case was Flynn's fault.
I assume Powell will have the opportunity to light prosecutors up for this attempted bait'n'switch to hang Flynn out for DOJ's screw-up.
In response to that tweet:Delete
This judge is either 1) steering Powell to withdraw Flynn’s plea; or 2) highly compromised and Barr/Durham are waiting for him to join the cabal in hanging himself (figuratively of course).
It doesn't seem just to me. What is a man to do when the full weight of the government comes down on him? It's honorable that he wanted to spare his son. And then to find out that the government's conduct was 1000 times worse than his? That adds salt to the wound.ReplyDelete
A comeuppance for the one percenters, celebrities, athletes, talking heads, etc., is way overdue.
And judges pretend that it's a fair contest.Delete