Nearly two years ago I attended Michael Flynn’s first (now only) sentencing hearing.

Up to that point, he'd seemed content with his plea deal with Mueller.

But at the hearing, something changed: Judge Emmet Sullivan implied he really might sentence Flynn to some prison time.
Mueller's team had said Flynn had cooperated substantially a sentence of no incarceration would be warranted.

But Sullivan tore into Flynn, making clear that that he viewed Flynn's crime as quite serious and that avoiding incarceration was no sure thing

vox.com/2018/12/18/181…
So Flynn unexpectedly took an out.

He'd previously said he'd be happy to be sentenced, even though his cooperation in one non-Mueller case was not yet complete.

At the hearing, he changed his mind, saying he wanted to get full credit for his cooperation.
Subsequent events suggest Flynn had something else in mind.

His cooperation in the other case did not, in fact, end up panning out. Meanwhile, Flynn ditched his lawyers and hired Sidney Powell, who proceeded to try and discredit and/or drag out the process
Still, Flynn was headed for another sentencing hearing, at the beginning of 2020.

But then he got an unexpected assist: the Justice Department announced it wanted to withdraw his case (even though Flynn had already pleaded guilty and reaffirmed his guilt under oath)
That could have been the end, but Judge Sullivan smelled a rat and tried to put the brakes on that.

So a bizarre spectacle ensued this year, of the government and the defense working together to try and discredit Flynn's initial prosecution, before a skeptical judge
The last major action in the case was a tense September hearing before Judge Sullivan about whether he should let DOJ withdraw the case.

At it, Sidney Powell told the judge that she had recently spoken to Trump about it, but asked him not to pardon Flynn

Now, after Trump lost and before Judge Sullivan ruled, that pardon has arrived.

But we are still awaiting details on precisely what that pardon covered.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andrew Prokop

Andrew Prokop Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @awprokop

23 Nov
Aaron van Langevelde, key GOP vote on the Michigan board of canvassers, speaks at meeting: "We have a duty to certify this election based on the returns. This is very clear. I'm not going to argue that we're not." But, wants to wait to hear public comments before making the vote
Van Langevelde is stressing that the board of canvassers has a limited role, and a legal "duty" to certify.

"We don't have the authority to conduct a trial here on whether election fraud occurred."
Van Langevelde confirms he'll vote to certify MI results.

"The law is absolutely clear. We have a clear legal duty to certify the results of the election as shown by the returns that were given to us... As John Adams once said, we are a government of laws, not men"
Read 4 tweets
20 Nov
A spokesperson from Gov. Kemp's office told the AP yesterday that Kemp would "make a determination in his own mind if he’s seen" evidence of widespread voter fraud apnews.com/article/joe-bi…
.@BrendanKeefe reports that certification in Georgia will happen as expected. Presser at 5 PM.

Read 4 tweets
17 Nov
State certifications watch: Republicans block certification of Wayne County, Michigan results.

Last week, two longtime Michigan Republicans sounded the alarm about "the very real prospect the Republicans who control the Senate and House in Lansing might nullify the clear and decisive victory achieved by Joe Biden in Michigan"

crainsdetroit.com/other-voices/c…
This appears to be the Twitter account for one of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers Republican members who voted not to certify. A Gateway Pundit fan who has RTed a Trump tweet claiming mail ballot fraud twitter.com/HartmannDude/w…
Read 6 tweets
17 Nov
The hearing for the Trump campaign's federal lawsuit against the state of Pennsylvania has begun.

Rudy Giuliani is present and introduces himself.
Judge Matthew Brann presiding. Daniel Donovan of Kirkland & Ellis will be making the main argument for the defense.

Starts with discussion on the changing versions of the Trump campaign's complaint. The remaining claim that will be discussed today will be about equal protection
Rudy begins by saying there is "widespread, nationwide voter fraud of which this is a part."

He quotes Rahm Emanuel's years-old quote about never letting a crisis go to waste. Says the pandemic was used as cover to expand mail-in voting.
Read 12 tweets
11 Nov
Trump is trying to overturn the election results. I doubt he’ll be successful. But I don’t know it for sure.

In the coming weeks, I’ll be watching two things:

1. Certifications
2. GOP state legislators and electors

vox.com/2020/11/11/215…
There are two things that are set to happen with the election results in the coming weeks that ordinarily would be formalities, but in a disputed election are crucial.

First is the states' certifications of their results. Second is the selection of electors.
Right now, both processes are clearly on track to make Biden the next president.

Trump's only hope is to upset the apple cart on one or both. Blocking or delaying certifications somehow, or getting partisan GOP state legislators in states Biden won to appoint Trump electors.
Read 11 tweets
3 Nov
An interesting passage explaining why Mueller didn't charge Roger Stone or WikiLeaks with conspiracy regarding the hacked emails. Let's go through it...
First, the report confirms Mueller considered charging WikiLeaks, Assange, or Stone as "conspirators in the computer-intrusion conspiracy," under the theory that they were "late joiners" to the Russian intelligence officers' hacking plot.
But not sufficient "admissible evidence" that WikiLeaks knew of hackings before they happened, or made an agreement about it.

"A “fence” who had no advance knowledge of the plan to steal the goods he disposes of... is generally not liable for conspiring to steal those goods"
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!