Normally status conferences are boring, the lawyers just discuss briefing schedules and logistics
This was not
We saw a mini-debate between @SidneyPowell1 and Brandon Van Grack
This conference wasn't supposed to be about that, the prosecutors haven't filed an opposition
But it was
He also noted that @GenFlynn's plea agreement would not be relevant, because that was an agreement between the parties which does not bind him
So Brady, and Sullivan's standing order, control
Even smiling
He was intrigued
He pushed back at times, but it was clear Judge Sullivan and Powell had great rapport
Goldman couldn't have been more wrong
Sullivan was curious and intrigued throughout, though he was clearly reserving judgment
- failure to produce the original Pientka 302
- failure to produce Strzok/Page text messages in a timely fashion
She argued that Flynn would never have pled guilty if prosecutors met their Brady obligations
@SidneyPowell1 declined to answer, but suggested that Flynn *probably* wouldn't withdraw the plea
Instead, she wants the whole case thrown out bc of misconduct
Judge Sullivan - ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE - articulated how some of the undisclosed Brady material would have influenced his sentencing decision
This suggests that they are no longer going to recommend only probation if Flynn sticks to his plea
Ups the stakes considerably
This is definitely one of the more fascinating cases I've ever seen in court
And the MSM's read on Sullivan has been totally wrong
I had a different take
I thought Sullivan was being theatrical for effect, trying to troll Flynn into withdrawing his plea, because he suspected govt misconduct
pscp.tv/w/1rmxPQEmYZMKN
He's going to get to see whether or not his instincts were right
And if there was a failure to disclose Brady material...well, I wouldn't want to be the prosecutors
FIN
It took a while for @adamgoldmanNYT to put his spin together but he's done it
Imagine focusing on this as the lede - and not the fact that Judge Sullivan was taking @SidneyPowell1's Brady motion very seriously
nytimes.com/2019/09/10/us/…
Who are these brave anonymous "criminal lawyers" you are relying on for...analysis?
And why did an @nytimes editor permit you to give them anonymity?
You say that Flynn's lawyers were "given" the Strzok/Page text messages before he pled guilty
Van Grack said only that Flynn's lawyers were "made aware" of the text messages
When can we expect a correction?