Thread by @DawsonSField

Flynn hearing getting ready to start, attorneys are checking in & confirming the tech is working.

I'll be live tweeting it In this thread.

#FlynnHearing

The public can hear it by dialing in with these codes: 877-336-1839 (code 5524636); 888-363-4734 (code 6114909); 877-336-1839 (code 1429888); 877-402-9753 (code 2090166); 888-557-8511 (code 4140864); 888-273-3658 (code 1773796).

Court is in order, Judge Sessions is in the house!

Let's go!

JS is going to do a summary of the main arguments & ask the lawyers to confirm it is accurate. Then he will ask questions of counsel.
Not going to focus on if there is a live case, not going to focus on perjury allegations against Flynn, & not focusing on authority of Amicus.

Focusing on 2 issues:

Prosecutorial abuse & whether the court should deny the government leave to dismiss.

Sullivan believed that Flynn's sentencing memo in 12/18/18 raised serious questions about Flynn's guilt which lead to the plea discussion with Flynn.
Which is why he delayed sentencing to allow Flynn to help himself with continued cooperation.

Key fact to resolve...
i expect Sidey to challenge it, that Flynn chose to not cooperate in the FARA prosecution of his FIG partners.

Flynn refused to testify falsely against his partners as asked by the SCO.

The government never reviewed or filed a response to Flynn's claims of misconduct because Covington & Burlington never produced the documents necessary to determine if his lawyers had inappropriately represented him.

(But in June 2020, DOJ denied the misconduct allegations)

Focus on Rule 48a, the AG or US Attorney may file a dismissal at the leave of the course.
Gleeson argues "Court plays a limited by important role." in Rule 48a.
Amidon case precedent gives the court such a role. Before Rule 48 the DOJ had unfettered power.

But corrupt dismissals by prosecutors lead to rule 48 to prevent corrupt or politically corrupt dismissals after indictment.

From Gleeson: Executives primacy, does not overrule the courts rule in rejecting a motion if it serves the public interest.

Looking to set a precedent that Swampy prosecutors can't let Swamp creatures go, so future DOJ's can't go back to the practice that let Epstein go!

This is more important than most realize.

Sullivan must rule that corrupt DOJ prosecutors can't let a defendant go for corrupt political reasons.
Then rule that DOJ is not dropping the case against Flynn for corrupt political reasons.

This is how Flynn & Barr are exonerated!

Gleeson's Amicus briefing is like a friendly pitcher in a home run derby trying to give Sullivan pitches to knock out of the park.

Gleeson's brief argues that DOJ must show there is evidence to support the dismissal of charges. It can't just say it, DOJ has to prove it. Would make a good precedent!

Can't wait for DOJ to prove why the charges must be dropped against Flynn! Wish they had to in Epstein's case!

Imagine if the Judge in Florida forced then US Attorney Acosta to prove that Epstein "belonged to intelligence" & that it was in the public interest to let a black mailing pedophile go to avoid exposing what intelligence connections that he had!

2 reasons in Gleeson's brief.

That the dismissal is just textual, just a conclusory statement with no evidence to back it up. Prosecutors must have good faith & not be faking the dismissal, Duh.

Second with evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. Anyone think there wasn't any?

Got dropped, trying to get back in.

Got dropped into another feed now, judge had moved onto DOJ's arguments for dropping case.

Focus on DOJ's claims that the statements in the case were not material, Gleeson says they are material. Judge must decide if DOJ has evidence to support it's position.

Sullivan will have to decide if there is a factual basis for determining if the closing of Crossfire Razor matters & whether DOJ has more than a contextual basis to rule that the interview was not material, & thus not criminal if he lied.

Also looking to decide if the DOJ has evidence to support it's claim that it cannot prove that Flynn knowingly lied to the FBI agents. What do you think that will show?

Will also decide if the FBI agents opinion that Flynn wasn't lying are evidence that can be used to show Flynn didn't lie.
Of course that evidence was concealed from Flynn by his Covington attorneys on the day he agreed to the guilty plea after SCO told them of the FBI statements

Now asking DOJ if it was accurate review & assessment.

DOJ objects to Sullivan saying that he has Rule 48a jurisdiction to reject, because the appeals court sent it back to him saying it could overrule Sullivan later if necessary.

SO setting up the appeal.

Now technical difficulties with DOJ's microphone.

Now with space ship sound effects!

Or maybe that is a sonar echo from Hunt for Red October!

Now going to recess for 30 minutes to try & fix it.

Looks like we are live again, back to DOJ.

Agrees with Judges summary of DOJ's position.

4 issues. Says DC circuit did not go as far as the judge did on Article 3 separation of powers issue. This is setting grounds for an appeal.

DOJ says it doesn't mean the court has to be a rubber stamp. Says judge should onlu use Rule 48a if it is a corrupt individual prosecutor working without DOJ authorization. So arguing that a corrupt DOJ is OK just not a corrupt Assistant US Attorney.

Arguing that DOJ should be allowed under Rule 48 to dismiss a case with favoritism or on pretext if DOJ wants too! That should not stand...

Now Mr. Cole from DOJ. From US Attorney's office in DC testifying that there was no political considerations in the dismissal! That needed to be said & is a major new statement by DOJ!
Also says DOJ must do a review of a case when there are questions about framing the defendant.

Bringing in the Barnett statements! DOJ is entering testimony that FBI, DOJ & SCO conducted misconduct in the Flynn case!

Now adding Comey's testimony from HPSCI that DOJ did not have when it prosecuted Flynn. But is exculpatory for Flynn.
Comey's testimony clears Flynn!

Judge asked if there is a recording of Flynn's interview with FBI. DOJ says no audio recording but they have the FBI's recollections in their 302s.
Who are we going to call to testify to that? Strzok who texted that he would take official actions to influence the election!

Saying Pientka is an agent who filed a false FISA on Carter Page! Big news! He was an affiant!

And then McCabe has been accused of acting for political reasons. So we have no witnesses from FBI that are credible.

Against the testimony of an agent (Barnett) who says everyone was out to get Flynn & no crime had occurred!

Judge asking about Sidney Powell's letter to AG Barr on June 6th 2019.
Judge notes she had not made a motion of appearance & Covington was still his attorneys.
Asking DOJ about the propriety of this letter from Powell?

DOJ says AG made his decision based upon the withdraw of the guilty plea & the significant evidence of FBI misconduct.

Not based upon Powell's letter.

Judge ask if AG Barr replied. DOJ doesn't know.

Sullivan wants DOJ to determine if there was a reply or meeting. DOJ says it will check with the leadership of the department to determine how to respond.
Powell tried to interrupt the judge, bad form again.

Powell says the only response from DOJ was Van Grack responding to the letter by telling her that there was no hidden Brady material.

We know that was false.

But Powell refuses to answer if she talked about it with the President, claims Executive Privilege! That is not good.

Claims she gave an update within the last month to someone in the White House Counsel's office. Names Jenna Ellis & the President himself.
Says she only asked the President to not pardon Flynn!

This is the only discussion with @POTUS about Flynn.

Powell says Flynn had fired Covinton, she was his counsel, but that she had not filed a motion of appearance yet for tactical reasons.

Powell is now asking Sullivan to strike all arguments by the Amicus & his filings. JS tells her that her disagreement is well known, & everyone's position is well known. But if you want to file another argument go ahead.

Amateurish by Powell.

Powell is now asking the Judge to recuse himself again.

This is making her look ridiculous.

She is also asking to not let Strzok's lawyer make an appearance in the case because it is after the deadline to join the case. So she doesn't want Strzok to prove documents were forged?

She isn't giving up on her argument that Sullivan should recuse from the case.

Judge is being patient with Powell, though he points out that she has never filed a motion on this point. He is giving her a week from today to put it n writing. The case won't be over today by her.

Now she is getting to a real point. The Flynn testimony of the Rafekian case in EDVA. Powell alleges that Van Grack threatened Gen. Flynn to try & get him to give false testimony in the case. But her credibility is weak now.

Sullivan gets Gleeson to confirm that false news stories that they discussed this case before he was appointed are false. Gleeson agrees, today is the first time talking about the case with the Judge.

Judge says that both Van Grack & his team have withdrawn from the case along with Tim Shea who filed the motion to dismiss. So who is he supposed to ask about this case.

DOJ reminds Sullivan of his statements 12/18/18: he thought Flynn was innocent & didn't want to sentence him.

DOJ highlights that FLynn has testified that he was under duress when he plead guilty. DOJ points to the illegal side agreement by Covington email with SCO to promise of the plea deal. SCO says they made not promise, but Covington says they did, that's misconduct.

Also making the court aware of Covington conflicts of interest in the case that make a possible issue with the guilty plea without a motion to dismiss.

Uses a DOJ case as reference, where 4 years ago with Judge Sullivan. DOJ released 25 defendants convicted on the testimony of an FBI agent who was arrested for stealing drugs from the evidence room. Even though many had plead guilty & some were already sentence.

No written opinions in the case of FBI Agent Lourrie (Spelling) but just approved motions to dismiss.

JS asks DOJ what grounds to decide dismissing with or without prejudice?
Is DOJ arguing for either dismissal with prejudice or not?
DOJ says it requested with prejudice, but that is up to the judge to decide not DOJ.

JS. In Contreras hearing, Flynn confessed to uncharged criminal conduct (that 3rd charge that DOJ did not ask be removed by prejudice).
JS: Would it be appropriate to allow future prosecutors or AG's to decide if that uncharged conduct should be charged?

DOJ argues that the uncharged conduct should not be dismissed with prejudice so DOJ can prosecute Gen. Flynn later.
But that statement of offense, has serious conflict of interest issues too.

DOJ says because Flynn never admitted intent in his guilty plea or w Van Grack that is what made his testimony not valuable in the other case.

But DOJ wants Flynn to still be liable to criminal charges in the future for that FARA violation. Asks judge to not dismiss w prejudice.

DOJ splitting hairs on it not being misconduct to not give over the Brady evidence & deciding to drop the charges based upon the newly found Brady evidence.

DOJ: Judge Sullivan's questions at the sentencing hearing lead to DOJ looking further at the evidence & lead to the unraveling of this case.

Says it couldn't be material to Crossfire Hurricane as the agents involved didn't think CH was relevant to Flynn

Once the defendant withdrew his plea, they looked at whether they could prove the case in light of the Brady disclosures & convinced they could never prove the crimes

The Flynn case agent (Barnett) concluded that the transcript of the Kislyak & decided Flynn wasn't compromised by the Russians.

Relies upon Comey telling Obama the Flynn Kislyak calls were legit as proof Flynn is innocent.

DOJ: Quotes Priestap notes asking if their goal was to get Flynn fired, which is not the FBI's job.

The FBI agents own statements rebut Gleeson's claim that the interview was material to Crossfire Hurricane. FBI didn't bother asking the questions Gleeson thought Flynn obstructed

Gleeson says these questions are important, but the FBI didn't even bother to ask them.

So going back to Sullivan's sentencing hearing questions, the FBI & DOJ didn't have the evidence to prove Flynn's guilt then.

JS: Is this Monday morning quarterbacking? Or is this a new set of attorneys ignoring what the earlier team decided?

Should DOJ have filed a motion to reconsider all the things Van Grack filed? Ask the judge to reconsider his ruling from sentencing hearing, 1st instead of motion

DOJ justifies reversal claiming Van Grack's team didn't say anything false in up through December filings. Then after Flynn withdrew plea they looked again & came up with different opinion.

BUT he says when they tried to match up the evidence to the Statement of Offense Flynn plead guilty too, it did not add up. There wasn't evidence to support the charges he plead guilty too in 2017!

DOJ says the agents are celebrating the closing of the Flynn case & people keep propping it up. That the people closest to it, knew in 2016 & 2017 that there was not there there....

DOJ asserting this is career people in the DOJ, this case should be dismissed.

JS discusses the Stevens case where DOJ got caught with Brady evidence withheld & asked for case to be dismissed.
This isn't like Stevens right?
DOJ, we inherited this case & the defendant was still maintaining his plea.

DOJ makes big claim that Brady compliance after guilty plea only applied to sentencing issues not whether Flynn was guilty or not. Only after he withdrew his plea did they look for Brady evidence of his innocence?
Sounds like BS or policy consideration.

JS. Strzok's lawyer has claimed evidence was altered in the case. Asks DOJ to certify if that is true and within a week that all other evidence is unaltered.

DOJ certifies that AG Barr told him to inform the court that his decision was not made based upon any input or tweets by the President.

If the court considers the President's tweets, the court should find his tweets as the Chief Executives support for the propriety of these decisions!

DOJ: What drove this decision is that we dug through the SCO's documents & found we could not prove the statement of offense Flynn plead guilty too.

Judge, what should I consider that no SCO lawyers filed the motion to dismiss & why did BVG remove himself from this case?

DOJ says you should not give any weigh to the fact that SCO attorney's are not longer on this case. Career DOJ prosecutors are handling it.

Why should court consider Fokker binding but not Amadon?

DOJ claims Rule 48 gives no power to the court to disagree with prosecutors decision.

Gleeson asked questions about RUle 48 motions with Prejudice. Only case he is aware of where DOJ asked for a motion to dismiss with prejudice is the Senator Stevens case.
Argues for dismissing without prejudice, list several additional charges Flynn could be charged w either way.

Sullivan: Why have you (Gleeson) not asked for an evidentiary hearing.
He says it isn't necessary to get more evidence. But that he should ask DOJ for their reasons, their real reasons for dropping the motion to dismiss.

I agree!

Gleeson is arguing that Flynn isn't maintaining his innocence. That is false, he claimed in January that he is innocent & was coerced into pleading guilty.

Gleeson has argued that Powell's continually changing arguments & repetitive filings undermines her case (he has a point) except in this case it is because Judge Sullivan's Brady order keeps forcing DOJ to produce more evidence.

Now Gleeson is reading Trump's tweets!

I bet most of the Dems have not heard many of his arguments showing Flynn was set up!

Gleeson claiming case is proof that Barr gave in to Trump's pressure. I'm sure that won't make it into the ruling.

Judge is getting to questions & the feed is dead....

I have to run, I'll have to pick up a recorded version later to finish this thread.