Firstly, Larry Johnson and Robert Willmann know more about this case than I do. It now appears, if this report today is to be believed, that Emmett Sullivan is now inclined to charge General Flynn with contempt of court and perjury. I have to ask; for what? This is Kafkaesque.
For agreeing to a plea deal that Flynn knew was false? For failing to plead innocence? For reversing his plea when it was demonstrated that the prosecution case against him was utterly untrue and corrupt?
“Judge”, I use the term loosely, Sullivan seems to be so ensnared in the coils of judicial procedure that he has forgotten that truth and justice matter. That is the nicest construct I can put on it. I think it’s time for Sidney Powell to rip this judge to shreds. I await Larry and Roberts comments.
Walrus,
Flynn was told by his lawyers from Covington & Burling that he was guilty. Covington & Burling were not only wrong they made no effort to get the exculpatory evidince and purposely witheld what evidence they did possess - repeatedly - from Flynn's new lawyer. But then that has already been reported on publicly and discussed here. Perhaps your memory is faulty. Sydney Powell can only appeal the conduct of the Judge. This serves as a nice distraction from the unconstitutional conduct of the Obama administration in wiretapping political opponents; as well as multiple members of Congress, multiple governors and state health officials in response to China's biological attack against the US and Western nations.
Posted by: Fred | 14 May 2020 at 12:00 PM
Fred,
Yes, I agree with you. Sullivan trying to charge Flynn with perjury and contempt of court is a deliberate distraction. I would have thought the people who should be charged are the ones who constructed and prosecuted the bogus charge in the first place.
Posted by: walrus | 14 May 2020 at 12:13 PM
walrus
Sullivan is in no sense an unbiased jurist.
Posted by: turcopolier | 14 May 2020 at 12:17 PM
How many defendants automatically claim they are "not guilty, your honor" when asked to enter their plea, even when there is still gunpowder on their hands?
Do they also get charged with perjury after their guilt is established, beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers? You lied to the court - you said you were innocent. Double time in the slammer for you.
Defendant statements of either their own guilt or innocence should be "privileged" and therefore not actionable. Those statements are fundamental to our trust in our judicial system, and should never later be claimed perjury or false statements if the defendant changes their mind or a jury makes their ultimate finding.
Posted by: Deap | 14 May 2020 at 12:32 PM
Thank you Larry and Walrus.
Although different people at different times, and different circumstances: a comparison.
Then CIA Agent Valerie Plame outing [she is currently a Democrat candidate for a New Mexico congressional seat].
And, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn [NSA-designee] outing.
Outing, that is: leaking their identities, by government officials[s], to . . . .and release of classified information.
How do the actions taken by government compare and contrast, at the time of outing/leaking crimes.
1] Both leaks went to the Washington Post.
2] Substance of the Plame and Flynn leaks related to . . .
WAP published Plame's identity, July 14, 2003. George Bush the younger, then president. Robert David Sanders "Bob" Novak put his name to this at WAP. [Her husband, Joseph C. Wilson 4th, "What I Didn't Find in Africa", in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, disputed Bush/Cheney administration claims, their claims of WMD in Iraq.]
WAP published Flynn's identify, Jan. 12, 2017. Barack Obama, then president. David Reynolds Ignatius put his name to it at WAP. Flynn disputed Obama administration "facts" about their Syrian war in particular, and more generally, in west Asia/near East/middle east.]
3] Investigation at the time or no investigation at the time.
Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981 requires actions on such matters.
In the Plame matter, the CIA, on July 24, 2003 made a phone call to the DOJ about this, according to the CIA. They followed this up with a July 30, 2003 letter.
Government records show "on 24 July 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of DoJ noting concerns with recent articles on this subject and stating that the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of a review of the articles by subject matter experts. By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA reported to the Criminal Division of DoJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The letter also informed DoJ that the CIA's Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter. This letter was sent again to DoJ by facsimile on 5 September 2003."
[[ see: https://web.archive.org/web/20060705062919/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf">http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf">https://web.archive.org/web/20060705062919/http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf ]]
Sept. 30, 2003, Bush famously stated, viz. the identities of the leaker[s]: "I want to know who it is ... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."
Dec. 30, 2003 a Special Counsel was also appointed to investigate the Plame matter, as well.
Then AG John Ashcroft recused himself and thus declined to make this SC appointment.
Patrick Fitzgerald was named the Special Counsel by then Deputy AG James Comey.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We know many more details now about the Plame matter, than about what, if any, investigation may, or may not have, begun, at the time of the Flynn outing and release of classified information.
What we do know, so far, about the Flynn matter is that, at the time, there was no attempt -- or at least, we don't know if there was -- any attempt from the Flynn outing on Jan. 12, 2017, to Jan. 20 of that year, when Obama was still president:
a] if the CIA asked for an investigation
b] if then AG Lynch did
c] if DAG at the time Yates did
d] if Obama did
We also don't know if, beginning Jan. 20
a] if then acting AG Yates did
b] if President Trump did
c] if the CIA did
Once Jeff Sessions was confirmed as AG, we don't know if he did, nor do we know if DAG Rod Rosenstein did.
Nor do we know if the CIA did.
We do know Rosenstein appointed Mueller as SC to investigate Flynn, among other things.
And we now know there was no predicate for any of the Mueller SCO appointment; thus, Rosenstein, too: what was he doing?
We do know that at some point after Bill Barr was confirmed as AG last year, that he began to investigate outing of Flynn and release of classified information, that is, actual crimes.
It is a fair question to ask when he actually began investigation on the Flynn outing, and leaking of classified material related to that.
And to ask when, or if, the CIA, since Jan. 20, 2017, ever did.
We do know there were many public enemies of Flynn at highest levels of DOJ, FBI, CIA, and the office Clapper was in charge of at the time, Director of National Intelligence.
And we know Obama is an enemy of Flynn.
If the CIA never took any steps, prior to the Barr confirmation as AG -- and I have no way of knowing whether they did or did not, viz. the Flynn outing and leak of classified information, ---what, if any, might or should be, if any, the consequences of that?
And, ditto the DOJ.
As an aside: Judge Emmett Sullivan's ongoing tomfoolery and slapdash in the Flynn criminal case puts in relief, sharp relief, just how upside down this entire issue has become.
It appear this judge want to protect the likes of Obama, and Yates, and the long list of villains whose mission remain: Destroy Flynn at all costs.
-30-
Posted by: Jim | 14 May 2020 at 12:34 PM
Walrus,
Flynn's guilty plea being sworn to under penalty of perjury is no small matter, and the DOJs actions have been, in total, extremely odd.
It may be unwise to read too much into this at this point. The DOJ has wasted a couple of years and no doubt millions of dollars worth of the court's time. Sullivan is providing a platform wherein the DOJ will have to fully explain itself in this matter. Both past and present DOJs, that is.
Posted by: Mark K Logan | 14 May 2020 at 12:43 PM
What is most relevant here is:
What did Flynn know at the time he pled guilty, and
what was his state of mind at that time.
I give links to two copies of the "Declaration of Michael T. Flynn", which addresses those issues, together with some discussion by me, here:
http://kwhmediawatch.blogspot.com/2020/05/what-media-wont-tell-you-about-flynn.html
As a general observation, there has been a tidal wave of criticism in American media over the DOJ dropping the charges against Flynn.
I have made an attempt to follow what the American MSM are saying about this, and the hostility to both Flynn and Barr is just overwhelming.
Surely that overwhelming media opinion had an effect on Judge Sullivan's bad decision.
Posted by: Keith Harbaugh | 14 May 2020 at 12:49 PM
Perhaps I'm missing something. I know the FBI can listen in on phone calls made to foreign nationals, but how can the FBI legally listen in on phone calls made by the NSC Director of the President-Elect, regardless of who he is talking to?
Posted by: Bill H | 14 May 2020 at 01:01 PM
General Flynn's original law team belonged to Covington & Burling. That's where Eric Holder made partner. Since his time as Attorney General, Holder has returned to that law firm. Like Fred said, they sandbagged the case.
Posted by: FakeBot | 14 May 2020 at 01:12 PM
BillH
The intercept by NSA or CIA would be legal because of Kisliak's nationality.
Posted by: turcopolier | 14 May 2020 at 01:45 PM
My husband's default TV channel is MSNBC, programming which I often overhear. A fair-minded observer can't help but notice that Obama apologists only mention that Flynn plead guilty twice. They NEVER emphasize the beyond-mitigating aspects of the matter, e.g., that his counsel at the time (which was a law firm also employing former Obama AG Eric Holder) was either incompetent or purposefully negligent in advising him to do so. Nor do they mention that Flynn was threatened with the prospect of his son being prosecuted using rarely-enforced FARA laws. The apologists also fail to remind their audiences that the FBI investigation of Flynn was about to be closed -- much less do they report that he was NEVER charged with perjury in the first place!
The convenient and expedient failure to fully inform people has become typical among the MSM/Democrats/NeverTrumpers, et al. Their efforts to misinform, to perpetuate ignorance, continue to play out not only in the entire Obamagate scandal but it seems also when it comes to COVID-19 policy. No wonder zombie-themed entertainment is so popular in recent years. SMFH...
Posted by: akaPatience | 14 May 2020 at 01:48 PM
Jim,
Flynn wasn't outed. He was a widely known public figure for years. Trump and Pence announced Flynn lied to them and the FBI when he was fired. I'm not if this was mentioned in the press before Trump's announcement.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 14 May 2020 at 01:50 PM
Walrus,
Flynn swore before two judges under penalty of perjury that he lied to the FBI. He then swore that he didn't lie to the FBI when he asked to withdraw his guilty plea. There's the conundrum. If we had the transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations, we would know the answer to one of your questions. We could compare that to his guilty plea. We would then know if the prosecution's case was false. In that case both the prosecution and Flynn would be liable for perjuring themselves. It would also constitute prosecutorial misconduct IMO. Barr is doing Flynn a disservice by not releasing those transcripts.
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 14 May 2020 at 02:10 PM
TTG, there is this legal thing called the litigation privilege that, I think, covers what an accused can say in a trial. Plenty of people plead guilty to charges that they know to be false without the slightest demur by anyone..
Furthermore, Flynn may have become convinced by his lawyers that he had, in effect lied to the FBI. In addition, since he was not under oath or cautioned by the FBI at the time, even if he deliberately did lie for perhaps political or strategic reasons how is that a crime? People lie to people all the time.
To put that another way, is telling a female FBI agent “I’ll still respect you in the morning” going to get you 20 years?
Posted by: walrus | 14 May 2020 at 04:59 PM
TTG,
So all those mass incarcerated black men who pled guilty are really guilty because prosecutorial misconduct and defective legal advice neither happen to them nor are mittigating when a plea of guilty is made? "swore before two judges under penalty of perjury" The DOJ dropped the charges, it is up to the to prosecute for the new accusation that pleading guilty was actually perjury. Good luck at a jury trial with that.
Mark,
"Sullivan is providing a platform wherein the DOJ will have to fully explain itself in this matter."
So he is willfully refusing to dismiss the case so the DOJ can give him an explanation - other than the one they already gave him in the motion to dismiss? Justice Sullivan, on behalf of the Judiciary, is now taking it upon itself to determine what the executive branch of government was thinking in this case? To get that explanation he has appointed a former member of the judiciary, one who had previously worked side by side with Andrew Weissman. No bias there. You don't need to be a lawyer to see how ludicrous the suggestion and the judges actions appear.
Posted by: Fred | 14 May 2020 at 05:03 PM
Sullivan, like most of the Federal judiciary, is just another swamp creature.
He apparently slept through the class in law school where they said that the state has to prosecute the case, a judge can't - even as much as he may want to.
Posted by: TV | 14 May 2020 at 05:28 PM
The issue is both: the criminal leak of classified information; and the criminal outing -- the identity of Flynn -- related to classified information leak. Those are indissolubly linked.
The issue is also this, thanks to Judge Emmett Gilbert & Sullivan, who wrote May 13, 2020:
"ORDERED that amicus curiae shall address whether the Court should issue an Order to Show Cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury. . . and any other applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law."
Who would be charging Flynn with "criminal contempt for perjury"? And/Or, "and any other applicable statutes, rules, or controlling law"?
Perhaps Gilbert & Sullivan will keep the case open until after the November presidential election, or the November 2024 election, or the next one, so that another DOJ -- not headed by Bill Barr -- can so charge Flynn.
Or perhaps Gilbert & Sullivan is inviting Congress to name a Special Prosecutor.
Who might that be? James Comey? Andrew Weissmann? Sally Yates?
After all, how dare anyone expose Barry as anything but "the scandal free" administration. This is Gilbert & Sullivan's motive, as I see it, my opinion, based on what I have seen so far: To protect Barry, among others. And do that via keeping alive a prosecution of Flynn, based on DOJ/FBI/CIA skullduggery. [Another theory is the judge wants to throw the book at Covington for misconduct; perhaps both or one or the other are at play, I don't have the evidence at this time to clearly say.]
As for Trump and Pence, that is grist for another mill.
For all we know, Trump and Pence may have wanted Flynn gone and they did not care how it was done. And they did not want their finger prints on it; and for all we know, Trump and Pence were not opposed to the Mueller SC appointment.
These are also things we actually just don't have clear answers to, just yet.
But that sideshow is irrelevant to this legal proceeding/circus per the May 13 order.
However, it may [or may not] be relevant to whether or not Trump and Pence actually wanted Flynn gone – using the “Flynn lied” as an excuse to be rid of him.
Pence, at the time, had no business speaking about what was essentially classified information, at the time, by the way; he did, on national TV, and Flynn was the patsy.
Did Trump and Pence, and their administration, sit on their hands as well, and do nothing about the criminal leak of classified information linked to the outing of Flynn?
Claiming he lied could suggest they also were not interested in the crime of leaking classified information and his outing.
At least Bush said or claimed to wanted to get to the bottom of the Plame matter. Did Trump and Pence, at the time?
And if they did want to get to the bottom of it, I would like to see evidence that they did so, and/or evidence that they were thwarted in doing so.
Surely, Trump and Pence can argue this was why they were not opposed to Mueller appointment.
We don’t know all the contents of the scope memo Rosenstein wrote, as the boss of Mueller, -- whether or not investigation of the criminal leak and outing of Flynn was or was not part of Mueller’s scope of work.
We don’t know because chunks of scope memo are still redacted and not available to the public.
Presumably, AG Barr is investigation this; he came back on the scene last year.
What happened before him, going back to Jan. 20, 2017? And, what happened from Jan. 12 to Jan. 2020, with respect to the Obama administration, on this crime?
Did anyone, prior to Barr, do anything, or try to do anything?
If this was not part of Rosenstein's scope memo to Mueller, what can one conclude?
-30-
Posted by: Jim | 14 May 2020 at 05:35 PM
In recent years we have seen numerous individuals released from jail due to their innocence being found by DNA and other scientific processes. A good number of those individuals had plead guilty. In the Sullivan courtroom Flynn plead quietly twice (once to Sullivan the other to Contreras) but now pleads innocent and the government has decided to drop the case. But Judge Sullivan now questions what to do with Flynn and is asking for help from the legal community to determine what to do. It has become a circus or Sullivan wants his pound of flesh. Time will tell but if it is not to the benefit of Flynn then it’s off to the Appeals Court where it will be justly determined.
After insinuating that Flynn was a traitor this Judge should drop the case quickly but no he wants make himself like a bigger Idiot.
Posted by: Bobo | 14 May 2020 at 05:58 PM
Walrus,
Flynn's case never went to trial. It went straight to a guilty plea and was awaiting the sentencing phase. If the DOJ dropped charges before this guilty plea or at any time during a trial, I doubt we would be in this mess. What Flynn signed onto is straightforward. I don't know if this litigation privilege would apply to this Defendant's Acceptance.
"The preceding statement is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the Court with a factual basis for my guilty plea to the charge against me. It does not include all of the facts known to me regarding this offense. I make this statement knowingly and voluntarily and because I am, in fact, guilty o f the crime charged. No threats have been made to me nor am I under the influence o f anything that could impede my ability to understand this Statement o f the Offense fully."
"I have read every word of this Statement of the Offense, or have had it read to me. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, after consulting with my attorneys, I agree and stipulate to this Statement of the Offense, and declare under penalty of perjury that it is true and correct."
Posted by: The Twisted Genius | 14 May 2020 at 07:36 PM
Sullivan is addressing the guilty plea by Flynn and his subsequent withdrawal of that plea. creating the charge of perjury to the court.
Barr is opening up the DOJ to prosecutorial misconduct if the reason for the withdrawal is exculpatory information that was not provided defendant prior to his guilty plea.
Sullivan is exploiting this discrepancy. I am neither a legal expert nor lawyer so will stand corrected.
Posted by: blue peacock | 14 May 2020 at 09:23 PM
Down with the kritarchy!
Posted by: Vegetius | 14 May 2020 at 10:29 PM
It seems to be a last minute desperation play by Sullivan to keep Obama out of the frying pan.
Just today, the neocon-infested Washington Post ran an editorial, apparently by one of their DNC-affiliated writers, which attempted to jape the whole Obamagate narrative through a paroxysm of superlatives, mocking it as some gigantic and wholly imaginary conspiracy. This effort reminded me of their similar jocularity phase relative to Trump during the 2016 primary season.
I suspect the reality is just the sleazy truth of Obama being just as much of a crooked bastard as Bush. The Obama gang, of course, is desperate to prevent the tarnishing of Saint Barry.
If Flynn does get off in the end, might he sue Obama and at some point depose him? An interesting thought experiment.
Posted by: Outrage Beyond | 14 May 2020 at 11:51 PM
From the Twitter-in-Chief:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1261138690929295361?s=21
I find this hilarious. It is like POTUS is a helpless bystander. Does he not realize it is his DOJ that has “stolen or destroyed” the 302? Does he not know that he can declassify all of “Obamagate”?
Or is his intent to just troll everyone?
And what about him throwing Flynn to the hyenas by firing him?
Posted by: Jack | 15 May 2020 at 12:46 AM
Walrus,
When Judge Sullivan said three days ago that he was going to make a schedule for outside persons and organizations to file written arguments, it was essentially an invitation for arguments against the government's request to dismiss the case. I started to put together an article about that brazen move.
Now Sullivan has abandoned that move and has exposed himself as an advocate singularly against the defendant Flynn, which of course is not his role. His order of Wednesday, 13 May, appointed John Gleeson, a former federal judge in the Eastern District of New York, to present arguments against the motion to dismiss Flynn's case and whether Flynn should be the subject of a proceeding for criminal contempt of court for perjury.
Judge Sullivan's new order indicates that he has improperly invested his ego in the case, and that something is likely going on behind the curtain.
Posted by: robt willmann | 15 May 2020 at 09:37 AM
Jack,
With all that is emerging from the recent releases of sworn testimony from various actors surrounding the Flynn case, and the Russiagate hoohaw exposing the motivations of these individuals, can it be doubted that given the depth of the duplicity on exhibit here that it is entirely possible (indeed, likely) that something as incriminating as the "missing" 302 was destroyed to cover the tracks?
Although some of the principals left of their own volition, and others were removed through being fired, it is clear that others acted as "stay behind" forces of the Deep State to continue the coup from inside the DOJ, FBI, and IC. Under these circumstances, it is not at all clear that President Trump was (and is now) substantially in command of these agencies. Incriminating documents and recordings may well have been preemptively destroyed on the sayso of the "stay behind" plotters still in high positions, so calls for declassification of already disappeared evidence would be futile.
No, it doesn't look good that Flynn was fired, but at the time, and with what was known at that time, and given Flynn's plea, what could be expected? Now that things have subsequently been revealed, it looks like a bad call; hindsight is, as the saying has it, 20/20.
Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian | 15 May 2020 at 12:36 PM