Michael Flynn’s embarrassing legal strategy
By Aaron Blake
Dec. 16, 2019 at 3:57 p.m. EST
Last week, Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz issued a brutal report about the FBI’s handling of one Trump associate, Carter Page. Given that, Michael Flynn might have thought he’d get another look as he continues to await sentencing for lying to the FBI in the Russia investigation.
If he did, he’d have been sorely mistaken.
Judge Emmet J. Sullivan on Monday issued yet another rebuke of Flynn’s and his legal team’s contention that Flynn, who is now set to be sentenced Jan. 28, had been entrapped by the FBI and that his rights had been violated. A previous iteration of Flynn’s legal team made the argument, only to back down when Sullivan rebuked them. Flynn eventually hired a new legal team, led by Sidney Powell, which made even bolder claims to Flynn having his rights violated. But Sullivan wasn’t having any of it.
In a 92-page ruling, Sullivan accuses Flynn’s legal team of what is essentially plagiarism, suggests he has made frivolous requests for documents and decimates Flynn’s argument that he was duped into lying.
In a section ominously titled “Ethical Concerns with Mr. Flynn’s Brief,” Sullivan writes, “The Court notes that Mr. Flynn’s brief in support of his first Brady motion lifted verbatim portions from a source without attribution,” citing a 2012 brief from the New York Council of Defense Lawyers.
Sullivan then adds: “The District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the proceedings in this Court. … Rule 8.4(c) provides that “[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … [e]ngage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.” It then cites precedent for plagiarism being found to violate this rule.
As for requests for information Flynn’s lawyers made, Sullivan rather suggestively and dismissively categorizes them accordingly:
To evaluate Mr. Flynn’s requests, the Court divides them into six categories, acknowledging that there is some overlap within certain categories: (1) information that does not exist; (2) information that is not within the government’s possession; (3) information that Mr. Flynn concedes he is not entitled to; (4) information that the government has already provided to Mr. Flynn; (5) information that is unrelated to the charges against Mr. Flynn in this case or to his sentencing; and (6) remaining requests.
Flynn’s argument was essentially that the government committed violations of his Brady rights, which require it to disclose evidence that could be exculpatory. But Sullivan suggests that there is really no merit to the argument.
“Mr. Flynn, however, fails to explain how most of the requested information that the government has not already provided to him is relevant and material to his underlying offense — willfully and knowingly making materially false statements and omissions to the FBI, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2) — or to his sentencing,” Sullivan writes.
At his previous hearing, Sullivan seemed to anticipate further shenanigans from Flynn’s legal team. After he rebuked them for suggesting that Flynn had been entrapped, Flynn’s lawyers took responsibility for the failed gambit. But Sullivan went a step further, asking Flynn to reaffirm his admission that he had lied to the FBI willfully and knowingly. Flynn obliged.
In his Monday ruling, Sullivan notes that certain evidence Flynn cites — the anti-Trump text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page — were released before he reaffirmed his guilt.
“Furthermore, Mr. Flynn received the government’s productions of the actual Strzok-Page text messages after the entry of the Standing Brady Order and before he reaffirmed his guilty plea to this Court on December 18, 2018,” Sullivan writes. “Mr. Flynn maintained his guilty plea following the government’s disclosures.”
Given what happened at that hearing — Sullivan actually told Flynn, “Arguably, you sold your country out” — it’s not really a big shock that Sullivan wasn’t interested in entertaining Flynn’s conspiracy theories this time around. But that didn’t stop Flynn from bringing on a lawyer known for criticizing the FBI in stark terms and from proceeding with the entrapment argument.
It seems unlikely he was truly expecting Sullivan to reverse course. But Sullivan may not be his true audience here; it may instead be the very close Flynn ally who currently wields pardon power and will be more than happy to see Flynn lodging conspiracy theories about FBI misconduct in the Russia investigation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/12/16/michael-flynns-embarrassing-legal-strategy/
DO SOMETHING!
| 