You might have missed the news - but @SidneyPowell1 filed a BOMBSHELL motion in @GenFlynn's case on Friday night.
Powell is asking Judge Emmet Sullivan to find the prosecutors in contempt of court and get them thrown off the case for Brady violations.
Analysis thread
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn First, some basic background: "Brady violations" are when prosecutors fail to disclose evidence that could be favorable to the defense.
This is indispensable to due process, for pretty obvious reasons: if prosecutors can hide evidence they can get unjust convictions/pleas.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn This is particularly relevant in any case involving Judge Sullivan, who famously threw out former Senator Ted Stevens' conviction - due to Brady violations by the prosecutors in that case.
Stevens' case was covered heavily in @SidneyPowell1's great book, LICENSED TO LIE.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn Powell makes a SHOCKING accusation: that prosecutors Brandon Van Grack and Zainab Ahmad, under the direction of Andrew Weissmann,
"affirmatively suppressed evidence that destroyed the credibility of their primary witness [and] impugned their entire case against @GenFlynn."
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn It looks like @SidneyPowell1's allegations are based on a "voluntary" production of documents by the prosecutors on August 16th.
Van Grack denied that there was any Brady material in the production.
Powell disagreed - and argued that the prosecutors should be HELD IN CONTEMPT!
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn Note - it's pretty much impossible for outside observers to determine who's right in this case - yet.
@SidneyPowell1 filed an accompanying motion under seal, laying out the specific Brady violations, because the relevant evidence was produced under a protective order.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn Continuing on: @SidneyPowell1 notes what the consequences of a contempt finding by Judge Sullivan would be.
The existing prosecutors would be thrown off the case, and DOJ would have to appoint new prosecutors.
Just as happened in the Ted Stevens case.
Under Judge Sullivan.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn Van Grack, Ahmad, and Andrew Weissmann probably aren't very happy right now.
This motion threatens not only their prosecution of @GenFlynn, but their careers and their professional reputations.
They haven't filed their response yet.
But the NYT has.
nytimes.com/2019/08/30/us/…
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn I cannot stress how appalling this NYT article - by @adamgoldmanNYT - is.
It is purportedly news, not opinion.
But it reads like Pravda.
It's full of editorializing, and at times straight up falsehoods.
He - and the @nytimes - should be ashamed.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes Let's start with the first paragraph.
@adamgoldmanNYT accuses @SidneyPowell1 of "recycling unfounded conspiratorial accusations" against the prosecutors.
Is this the opinion section?
"Recycling" suggests this motion was filed previously. It wasn't.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes "Unfounded" suggests that there is no evidence underlying the claim that the prosecutors suppressed Brady evidence.
How could @adamgoldmanNYT know that?
As we discussed above, the relevant evidence was produced on August 16th - under a protective order!
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes "Conspiratorial?"
That's just pure pejorative.
It could have been applied to the defense lawyers in the Stevens case, who accused federal prosecutors of withholding Brady material.
Which they were.
Contemptible, @adamgoldmanNYT!
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes The prosecutors' brief - sorry, @nytimes article by @adamgoldmanNYT - continues with more ridiculous framing.
Goldman argues that @SidneyPowell1's filing could "anger" Judge Sullivan.
Why wouldn't Judge Sullivan be angrier about the alleged Brady violations?
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes Next, @adamgoldmanNYT suggests that the filing will "amplify[] right-wing theories about a so-called deep state of government bureaucrats working to undermine President Trump."
Nowhere in her brief does @SidneyPowell1 refer to a deep state.
But Goldman doesn't care.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes Read this bit. @adamgoldmanNYT argues that Powell's motion has "heightened speculation" that @GenFlynn is "making a bid for a pardon."
Speculation by whom? When? Why?
Not mentioned. Goldman provides no evidence for this claim.
That makes his claim - shall we say - unfounded?
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes Here's perhaps the most RIDICULOUS part of @adamgoldmanNYT's piece.
He notes that Powell is seeking a security clearance to review @GenFlynn's classified conversations with Sergey Kislyak.
Then he discusses the contents of those transcripts - which he apparently knows!
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes Hold the phone!
How does @adamgoldmanNYT know the contents of classified NSA transcripts relevant to Flynn's culpability?
And how can he argue with a straight face that @sidneypowell1 has filed an "unfounded" motion - to see those very transcripts?
She's @GenFlynn's LAWYER!
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes This is a mischaracterization from @adamgoldmanNYT.
I attended this hearing back in December 2018.
Judge Sullivan criticized @GenFlynn's lawyers, counsel from Covington & Burling.
Not Flynn himself.
And that was because - in the same papers - Flynn was admitting guilt.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes This is simply false from @adamgoldmanNYT.
@GenFlynn did not change his story re: Turkey.
He conceded to making materially false statements in his FARA filing - but NOT to making them KNOWINGLY, as @SidneyPowell1 explained in an earlier filing.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes A simple review of @GenFlynn's statement of offense (from his plea) clearly demonstrates that @adamgoldmanNYT's accusation is flat-out false.
The statement of offense includes discussion of "knowing" lies with regard to his FBI interview.
NOT his FARA filing on Turkey.
@SidneyPowell1 @GenFlynn @adamgoldmanNYT @nytimes Enough. @adamgoldmanNYT owes Powell and @GenFlynn apologies, though they aren't likely forthcoming.
Judge Sullivan has scheduled a hearing September 10th, here in DC.
I'll be there.
Should be explosive.
Because Judge Sullivan doesn't like crooked prosecutors.
FIN
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.