Pages

Sunday, February 9, 2020

This Time Sidney Powell Opposes More Delay

The government is asking for an extension in the Michael Flynn case--to get testimony from Flynn's Covington Burling lawyers about their ineffective representation. With Bill Barr's reputed right hand man, Tim Shea, now supervising the case that must be an uncomfortable concept for the Covington lawyers. Sidney Powell, otoh, says she's ready to forge ahead. Oh, and Team Trump prosecutor Brandon van Grack is off the case. Here's the Techno Fog summary:

New Flynn filings for a Sunday Morning -
Govt seeks a Court order for testimony from Flynn's prior counsel about his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Notable - Prosecutor Brandon Van Grack is not on the pleadings.  HT
@almostjingo

The Govt also seeks an extension to consider Flynn's Motion to Withdraw his Guilty Plea. [Will be granted.]
They need to speak w/ Flynn's former lawyers once the Court orders the atty/client waiver.
Full doc: https://scribd.com/document/446278916/Flynn-Govt-Motion-to-Amend-Briefing-Schedule-Wrt-Motion-to-Withdraw


Flynn and @SidneyPowell1 are opposed to the extension:
"The Department of Justice should agree to the withdrawal of the plea. Accordingly we oppose any further extension of the briefing schedule."


Again, the DOJ lead attorney on the case - Brandon Van Grack - is not on the filing.
Can't help but suspect it's because he could be called as a witness in all of this.


13 comments:

  1. UPDATE:

    Sentencing cancelled until claim of ineffective assistance against Flynn's previous attorneys is litigated... more.

    >>https://twitter.com/JohnWHuber/status/1226997080717176834<<

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder about this. Is this Barr delaying until he's ready to go public with Durham's results?

      Delete
  2. I would think they are orthogonal to each other.

    This is just Judge Sullivan; don't think Barr has any say, since he's DOJ and Judge is obviously Judicial branch.

    What is interesting is that Judge Sullivan is obviously NOT denying Flynn's motion to withdraw his plea out of hand; he is instead allowing Flynn to present evidence of his previous lawyers' inadequate assistance, which is essential to his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

    What I find curious is the part about trying to compel Flynn to waive his attorney/client privilege with respect to his previous attorneys. This seems problematic from Flynn' perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, the waiver. It's so his previous attorneys will be unable to assert att/client privilege and refuse to answer questions.

      Re Barr. This is a real time eating maneuver. Barr said major development late spring/early summer. This will get us pretty much there. All the players in the Flynn case are also major players in the Russia Hoax. I'm speculating that Barr doesn't want to get to dismissal of Flynn until he's ready to prosecute, because the dismissal will include DoJ admitting to wrongful prosecution. That's essentially what just happened for Carter Page, and it should guarantee him big bucks. Page's big bucks should be chicken feed when compared to what Flynn may be in line for.

      Delete
    2. "speculating that Barr doesn't want to get to dismissal of Flynn until he's ready to prosecute, because the dismissal will include DoJ admitting to wrongful prosecution."

      Why should Barr need to delay such an admission, until he's ready to prosecute the Big Ugly players?
      I don't see, how such an admission (about Obama/ Mueller types) should hurt prosecutions of D.S. scum, by a Barr-run "reforming" DoJ.

      Delete
    3. The government can't just walk away. They have to get the judge's permission, which means they have to show as much of their hand as he demands. They wouldn't want to give up any evidence they'll be using too far ahead of time. My speculation.

      Delete
  3. Well, yes; somebody owes Flynn a load of compensation; the $64,000 question is whether the blame goes to Covington & Burling, or DOJ.

    OTOH, the point somebody brought up is that once the wrong doing on the part of DOJ becomes apparent in the process of deciding if Flynn can withdraw his plea is the moment when DOJ drops the case "in the interests of expedience and justice," rather than have their dirty linen exposed in court, and suffer the indignity of Judge Sullivan throwing the case out with prejudice -- which is exactly what DOJ did in the case of the Alaskan Senator that Weissmann screwed over, and IIRC, Judge Sullivan was the judge in that case!

    So, in the end, the Flynn case may not last too much longer; once the handwriting is on the wall, the plug gets pulled before it gets uglier. That could be as early as March.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't hafta choose--it can be "all of the above." Comey, Rosenstein, Mueller, the list goes on.

      Right now it continues to the end of Feb. Will DoJ be ready by then? Maybe--I very much hope so. I assume something like this will happen for PapaD, as well. Remember--he actually went to jail.

      Delete
  4. And then there is this in the Roger Stone case: prosecutors are asking for 87-108 months sentence!

    >>https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1227016333126180864<<

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @davereaboi

      Read this. It’s sickening. The federal prosecutors here are straight-up animals.

      Delete
    2. Life in prison. After all he is a violent felon. Everyone saw that on CNN when the SWAT team had to "take him down", and the gun moll he was holed up with.
      Tom S.

      Delete
    3. "Read this. It’s sickening. The federal prosecutors here are straight-up animals."

      Animals act on instinct and can't choose right or wrong. Van Grack and his ilk know better and are evil men.

      Delete
  5. Just read Sullivan has granted an open ended delay for the prosecutors massage the "truth" out of Flynn's original counsel. Prosecutors have also requested that Sullivan waive Flynn's attorney-client privilege with said counsel. My guess is that Sullivan will issue the waiver.
    Tom S.

    ReplyDelete