Thread by @ThatShockratees

If I’m right that Judge Sullivan backed Flynn into a corner, then called his bluff, Flynn’s firing of his lawyers isn’t at all surprising.

politico.com/amp/story/2019…

When DOJ claimed they weren’t relying on the information Sullivan ordered them to provide, and then Sullivan surprised us all by accepting that argument, Sullivan opened the door to successive prosecution that would otherwise be barred by double jeopardy.

One assumes that Sullivan asked for the public release because he already knows that the intercepts would damn Flynn, and also Trump. One assumes Barr caused DOJ to refuse the order, to protect Trump (as Barr has consistently done).

But in so doing, DOJ had to argue on paper that the damning Kislyak convos were wholly separate from the pending charges before Sullivan. Not related at all.

In so doing, DOJ blew up Flynn’s plea deal. Made it worthless. And Sullivan let them. He never liked that deal.

If the Kislyak convos were not part of the sentencing or the prosecution (in which Flynn made his deal), then they aren’t barred from future prosecution by that deal. Boom. Lawyered. (Or judged.)

This may have been Sullivan’s wise intent all along.

So you’re all aghast: “Why did Flynn blow up the best deal evah?”

Obvious: bc it’s now worthless. DOJ’s choice to protect Trump at Flynn’s expense torched it.

And: “Why did Flynn fire the lawyers who got him that great deal?”

Because they didn’t warn him and plan against it.

If Flynn hadn’t backed out, or attempted to (judges don’t let you do this lightly), he would have been testifying/cooperating against Bijan Kian, partner in crime, as soon as July. Wonder what will happen in that trial now?

Here’s my open question:

Does this chain of events (if I’m right) make Trump better off? Or worse off? Despite DOJ’s crassly-obvious move to protect him, I think on balance it makes Trump worse off. And I think we’ll know as soon as the Bijan Kian trial in July.