[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
The Establishments war on Donald Trump Title: UPDATE on the Flynn case UPDATE on the Flynn case by nolu chan https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.120.0.pdf Deborah A. Curtis, one of the government attorneys working the Michael Flynn case, notified the Court she is withdrawing from the case today because she will no longer be an employee of the Department of Justice effective tomorrow. Damn, that's short notice. The Flynn case is before Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Criminal No. 17-00232 (EGS) NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, hereby informs the Court that Assistant United States Attorney Deborah A. Curtis is withdrawing her appearance as counsel on this case because effective September 28, 2019, she will no longer be employed with the U.S. Department of Justice. JESSIE K. LIU By: _______ /s/ _______ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.118.0.pdf Doc 118, JOINT MOTION TO AMEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE (23 Sep 2019) Sydney Powell has been ranting about the government withholding Brady material. The Government requested "the Court continue and reset the deadlines associated with the defendant’s motion to compel the production of Brady material to October 1, 2019, for the government’s response, and October 22, 2019, for the defendant’s reply." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - https://www.scribd.com/document/427208290/116-Amendment-to-MTC-Brady United States v Michael T Flynn, DCDC 17-cr-232 (23 Sep 2019) Doc 116 Michael T. Flynn “Mr. Flynn” respectfully submits this amendment to his Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material and for an Order to Show Cause [“the Motion”], filed August 30, 2019 (Dkt. 111). 1. On page 4, paragraph 3 of the Motion, Mr. Flynn requests any drafts, electronic communications (“ECs”), emails, and texts related to Nellie Ohr’s research on Mr. Flynn, and all CIA cables on the topic as well. 2. On page 4, paragraph 4, Mr. Flynn additionally requests with respect to Col. (Ret.) James Baker, the current head of DOD Office of Net Assessment, production of Col. Baker’s calendar showing his meetings with or any other communications with David Ignatius from July 1, 2015 through March 2017. 3. On page 4, paragraph 8, Mr. Flynn further requests ECs in addition to human sources. 4. On page 5, paragraph 16, the date of the Russia Today dinner is incorrect. The date of the dinner was December 10, 2015, rather than December 17, 2015. Since June, when Powell took over for Flynn’s prior attorneys, she has been busy reviewing the entire record related to Flynn’s guilty plea for making false statements to the FBI. This revealed several pieces of evidence prosecutors had withheld—evidence Powell claims the government was required to turn over as Brady material and under the terms of presiding judge Emmett Sullivan’s standing order. After the government refused, Powell filed a Motion to Compel and sought sanctions against the federal prosecutors. She has since suggested that the government’s egregious conduct justifies dismissing the charge against Flynn. The original motion, filed last month, highlighted several areas of inquiry, which hint to several blockbuster discoveries in the wings. Sept. 23’s amendments provide additional insights into the information Powell believes exists that will benefit Flynn and further her argument of egregious government abuse. So, what did Flynn ask for? Most significantly, Powell added a request for a copy of Col. (Ret.) James “Baker’s calendar showing his meetings with or any other communications with David Ignatius from July 1, 2015 through March 2017.” Ignatius, a columnist for The Washington Post, broke the story on January 12, 2017, that “Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29, the day the Obama administration announced the expulsion of 35 Russian officials as well as other measures in retaliation for the hacking.” “What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?” Ignatius asked, while suggesting the calls implicated the Logan Act, which “(though never enforced) bars U.S. citizens from correspondence intending to influence a foreign government about ‘disputes’ with the United States.” The FBI later questioned Flynn about those calls, and then the special counsel charged that Flynn made false statements to the FBI agents, one of whom was the now-disgraced and fired Peter Strzok. While Flynn pleaded guilty to that charge and awaits sentencing, the government has refused to give Powell a copy of the recorded conversation between Flynn and Kislyak. She also seeks access to that in her motion to compel. But that Powell is pushing for Baker’s calendar and any notation of meetings or communications Baker had with Ignatius suggests she thinks she may have found the “senior U.S. official” who leaked details of Flynn’s conversations with Kislyak, or at a minimum was responsible for other leaks to Kislyak. To date, the leaker has yet to be identified—or prosecuted. In addition to Baker’s calendar, Powell wants more information concerning Nellie Ohr’s research on Flynn. Nellie is the wife of twice-demoted DOJ lawyer Bruce Ohr, who fed her husband information concerning the Trump campaign team that she had been paid to compile by Fusion GPS. Powell originally asked for “all documents, notes, information, FBI 302s, or testimony regarding Nellie Ohr’s research on Mr. Flynn and any information about transmitting it to the DOJ, CIA, or FBI,” suggesting Nellie Ohr played a bigger role in the targeting of the Trump campaign than previously known. Powell now seeks “any drafts, electronic communications (‘ECs’), emails, and texts related to Nellie Ohr’s research on Mr. Flynn, and all CIA cables on the topic” as well, indicating Flynn’s new attorney has determined additional methods Nellie Ohr used to communicate with the government, especially the CIA. Finally, Powell wants to ensure that the government lawyers don’t play a game of “it depends what the meaning of is is,” and clarified that in addition to “all transcripts, recordings, notes, correspondence, and 302s of any interactions with human sources or ‘OCONUS lures’ tasked against Mr. Flynn since he left DIA in 2014,” she wants copies of any electronic communications. Federal prosecutors have maintained all along that they have already turned over all the evidence that matters, and their position isn’t about to change now. So, expect the government lawyers to object to producing this evidence as well. But that’s where things get even more interesting because Powell then has a chance to lay out in her reply brief exactly why this evidence is relevant. Since Powell’s argument is that the case against Flynn should be dismissed for “egregious government misconduct,” expect that misconduct to be laid out in excruciating detail. Sydney Powell is shaking that tree.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: nolu chan (#0)
Sounds like she was fired.
#3. To: sneakypete (#1)
Technically, it sounds like her resignation was demanded and she resigned. Many of the court documents are sealed, so public knowledge is incomplete. Events, and the timing, suggest that this was not just the normal course of events. I suspect that Sidney Powell has them by the short hairs for holding back required Brady material and judgment day before Judge Sullivan is looming. This past Tuesday, a sister case involving a partner of Flynn hit an iceberg in the Eastern District of Virginia. The judge overturned a jury verdict on Sept 24th. In a 39-page Opinion, he ruled there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to sustain a conviction. Things have been going south. United States v Rafiekian, EDVA 18-cr-457 (24 Sep 2019) Doc 372 MEMORANDUM OPINION PAGE 39 For the above reasons, the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain either of Rafiekian's convictions, and the Motion for Acquittal is therefore GRANTED. Should the Court’s judgment of acquittal be later vacated or reversed, a new trial is warranted in the interests of justice, and the Motion for New Trial is conditionally GRANTED. The Court will issue an appropriate Order. Alexandria, Virginia
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|