Thread by @MuellerSheWrote

GLEESON: I would like to walk through the stated reasons for the motion to dismiss and how they hold no water. Materiality: Flynn was a campaign advisor, he had traveled to and had business ties with Russia, and just a month prior he had inappropriate backchannel

communications with the Russians. When asked about those communications, he lied. That's about as straightforward case of materiality as you can get. if the false statement can effect the function of the agency, flynn's lies effect it according to the government itself.

His statements prevented the FBI from learning why the communications occurred, why he lied about them, and fundamentally influence the investigation going forward. The government said that and the court agreed with it.

Pursuant to an active investigation into whether the trump campaign coordinated with russia, one of those officials lied about communications to coordinate with russia. When was the last time the DoJ took a position that a lack of predication in a false statement case?

Predication is NEVER a prerequisite to conduct the kind of interview that happened in this case. A violation of internal guidelines never gives rise to any rights on the part of the defendant.

The government also relies on a draft memo that would have close crossfire razor, but because of flynn's subsequent crimes it was not closed, but who ever heard of a memo like that being a basis for dismissing a case?

And since when does it matter that the FBI classified the investigation as criminal or counterintel, all these meaningless administrative things and the governments odd disclosure of them would be laughable.

materiality is not complicated. And how can they adopt materiality just for this one defendant. Imagine any other case where the predication were a factor? The government would laugh at that. They have manufactured a materiality standard JUST for flynn...

citing a 74 year old case that's no longer good law. Those are not standards for materiality anywhere else, and in any other case, the government would fight tooth and nail to keep that from happening. The governments willingness to try to sell them here,

when you and I know they wouldn't do it elsewhere, says so much .They went to the white house with the intention to help Flynn. The government previously told this court flynn's statements went to the heart of crossfire hurricane.

There's no rational view flynn's statement can be considered immaterial.