Mike Flynn's lawyers have submitted a redacted copy of their latest filing arguing that they're entitled to additional evidence. It starts by laying out a theory of the case -- Flynn was ambushed and essentially entrapped -- that he specifically disclaimed last year. 
Flynn's lawyers argue that by trying to get him to speak with them without his lawyers, and to be relaxed and unguarded, the FBI engaged in "conduct so shocking to the conscience ... that it requires dismissal."
(It's a pretty standard part of police interviews.)
(It's a pretty standard part of police interviews.)
Flynn's lawyers say they plan to ask a judge to dismiss the charges against him based on allegations of government misconduct.
This filing suggests comes close to arguing Flynn is innocent. It argues that he didn't actually lie, but rather that the FBI manipulated its report to make it appear that he had.
Hard to see how Judge Sullivan lets his plea go forward. From December:
Hard to see how Judge Sullivan lets his plea go forward. From December:
Here's a question for Crim Pro types: As a procedural matter, can Flynn move to dismiss the charges without first withdrawing his plea? The agreement is silent on that, but it broadly waives trial rights, and a motion might be untimely under the federal rules.
This is an interesting argument, and maybe the key to the whole thing: Flynn's lawyers are opening the door to arguing that he shouldn't be stuck with the consequences of prior proceedings because they say his prior counsel had a conflict.
This description of the Supreme Court's decision in Ruiz is misleading. Ruiz didn't hold that the government can hide impeaching evidence. But it held explicitly that the government is not required to disclose impeaching evidence before a defendant pleads guilty.
The law on this is tricky. Flynn's lawyers cite a bunch of cases that faulted DOJ for not disclosing evidence sufficiently before trial. But Flynn pleaded guilty. And federal courts have divided on how - or whether - Brady applies when a defendant foregoes his trial rights.
Flynn's lawyers say explicitly that he did not lie to the FBI (contradicting his plea agreement and his admission in open court).
This is an interesting argument: Flynn's lawyers lean a lot on the idea that an FBI report (a 302) isn't reliable enough "to create a federal felony." But that seems wrong: The lie creates the felony. The agents' testimony (and Flynn's) would be the evidence. The 302 is hearsay.
Powell cites her new book.
The argument that the FBI lacked an adequate basis to interview Flynn is interesting. It could go to materiality, but it's not framed that way. And the FBI doesn't need any basis to interview anyone, at least in a way that's enforceable by a defendant.
The closing line asks Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case. (He won't on this filing, because it's not framed as an MTD, doesn't cite the applicable standard, etc.).
Here it is ->
