In a Filing Claiming He’s Innocent, Mike Flynn’s Lawyers Accuse Mike Flynn of Lying Under Oath

Seven months after hiring Sidney Powell to blow up his plea deal, Mike Flynn has formally moved to do just that. The filing claims he is doing so because the government was mean — or more formally, “bad faith, vindictiveness, and breach of the plea agreement.”

Flynn claims being asked to testify in accordance with his grand jury testimony required him to lie

The core of Flynn’s argument is that the government newly asked him to testify that he knowingly lied in his FARA filing last summer, which led him to refuse, which led the government to decide not to use him as a witness and instead attempt (unsuccessfully) to name Flynn as a co-conspirator to access what his testimony would have otherwise given, which led them to have Judge Anthony Trenga throw out their convictions post-trial.

It’s the same argument that Flynn made last summer, even before the trial — which I showed at the time to misrepresent:

  • The point of the FARA filing (to change it from a commercial agreement to one focusing on Turkey)
  • The Covington & Burling notes
  • The statements prosecutors had made in court about whether Flynn was a co-conspirator with Bijan Kian and Ekim Alptekin

Flynn bolsters that shoddy argument with citations from the Bijan Kian trial that he claims show that the judge in that case, Anthony Trenga, agrees with him about his company’s underlying tie to Turkey, but in fact only shows that after Flynn blew up his plea deal, it fucked the government’s case against Kian.

They add just one substantive piece of evidence to all that: that the government took out a line saying “FLYNN then and there knew the following” in his statement of offense.

But even as that redline makes clear, the underlying lies (save the one about Alptekin’s cut-out deal) were all laid out before that language. Moreover, Flynn testified to all those things laid out there in his grand jury testimony, under oath.

Q: From the beginning of the project what was your understanding about on whose behalf the work was going to be performed?

A: I think at the — from the beginning it was always on behalf of elements of the Turkish government.

Q: Would it [sic] fair to say that the project was going to be principally for the benefit of the government of Turkey or high-ranking Turkish officials?

A: Yes, yeah.


Q: What was the principle focus of the work product that FIG did produce on the project?

A: The eventual work product or products that we had come up with was really focusing on Gulen.

Q: Was any work done on researching the state of the business climate in Turkey?

A: Not that I’m aware of or none that I recall.


Q: Is it fair to say that Mr. Alptekin acted as a go-between between FIG and Turkish government officials?

A: Yes.


Q: What work product do you know of that was not about Gulen?

A: I don’t think there was anything that we had done that had anything to do with, you know, anything else like business climates or stuff like that.


Q: Do you see the byline of the article? [referring to Flynn’s November 8, 2016 op-ed]

A: Yep, I do, yeah.


Q: Whose name is listed as the author of the op-ed?

A: My name.

Q: How did you first find out that this op-ed was in the works?

A: Bijan sent me a draft of it a copy of days prior, maybe about a week prior.


Q: Did you sketch out specific ideas for this particular op-ed with him before you saw the draft?

A: No.

As noted, these sworn statements conflict in key ways with the notes of what Flynn told Covington (meaning he lied to the lawyers drawing up his FARA filing).

And they conflict with the evidence that Flynn’s own filing says is proof that he was honest with Covington, because Flynn offered the false “commercial activity” and “radical Islam” comments he disavowed in his grand jury.

12 ECF No. 150-4 and 6; ECF No. 98-3 at Ex. 7 (Entitled Statement of the Problem: How do we restore confidence in the government of the Republic of Turkey and expose the Fethullah Gulen cult in the United States”); ECF No. 98-3 at Ex. 8 and 8-A (Covington Feb. 22, 2017 Notes: Commercial ActivityàCrystalized à Gulen); ECF No. 150-5 at 4; 150-6 at 2.

13 ECF No. 150-5, FBI 302 of Brian Smith on June 21, 2018, never produced by the government to Mr. Flynn (yet clear Brady evidence long exonerating Mr. Flynn of one of the prosecution’s most ridiculous allegations regarding the “initiation” of the only op-ed written and published in connection with the project). Even the recently filed, never produced FBI 302s prove that the FBI and prosecutors knew in mid-2018 from Covington lawyer Brian Smith that he: “was aware of the September 2016 meeting in New York City (NYC) where FLYNN and RAFIEKIAN met with Turkish government officials.” ECF No.150-5 at 5. “The meeting primarily focused on radical Islam. Briefly during the meeting, FIG described their business for ALPTEKIN/INOVO.” Id. “The topic of GULEN was brought up by Turkish officials at the meeting.” Id.

Effectively, then, Powell provides evidence that her client lied, either to the lawyers doing the FARA filing and/or in the grand jury, to say nothing of his two guilty pleas under oath.

Flynn’s lawyers also provide claims that are entirely irrelevant to the charges against Flynn.

Former FBI official Brian McCauley attended the New York meeting with the Turks. As McCauley testified in Rafiekian, the Turks gave no one instructions in that meeting, and Alptekin was not happy with any of FIG’s work. McCauley slapped down most of his ideas. See Ex. 10.

Significantly, Flynn also told Covington in their first meeting, that he briefed DIA before meeting the Turks in New York in September 2016.

And she makes much of the fact that Flynn didn’t review his FARA filing with Kian — which is irrelevant to whether he signed his name to filings that made claims that contradict with his sworn testimony in the grand jury.

On June 25, 2018, while represented by Covington—months before the government filed its sentencing motion and bragged about Mr. Flynn’s full cooperation and special assistance at his scheduled sentencing in December 2018—Mr. Flynn specifically told them:

I told this to you the other day, I don’t go over the FARA filing with Bijan [Rafiekian] at all. I don’t know if that makes any different to you all. But it wasn’t . . . learn a lot of things in hindsight. Would it have adjusted what I, how I stated, how I filled out, can’t say that it may have adjusted what I filled out; can’t say it would or would not have.1

It’s genuinely unclear whether Flynn’s lawyers are simply unclear on the concept, or whether they are just gleefully gaslighting Judge Emmet Sullivan with the expectation that won’t piss him off.

Flynn’s lawyers repeat the claim that Rob Kelner was conflicted that Judge Sullivan already rejected

In addition to having to claim that Flynn didn’t refuse to provide testimony in accord with his grand jury testimony, Flynn’s team also must sustain a claim that Rob Kelner was conflicted when he advised Flynn to take a plea deal that — had he not run his mouth, he would have already served his probation and been done.

They don’t actually argue that. Instead, they argue that after Flynn blew up his plea deal, the government obtained testimony from Kelner that — they believed — might sustain the prosecution. Flynn’s team claims that the prosecutor asked tricky questions of his fellow lawyer.

The prosecutors told the new defense lawyers that they would question Mr. Kelner in his July 3, 2019, interview about the Covington notes new counsel had just provided to the government—showing that Mr. Flynn had been fulsome with his counsel—but Mr. Turgeon did not do so. Instead, Mr. Turgeon carefully worded his questions to elicit responses from former counsel that were misleading at best, if not directly contradicted by the notes by Covington’s notetaker and partner Brian Smith. See, United States v. Rafiekian, Case No. 1:18-cr-457, ECF No. 270.

Within minutes of concluding the interview of Mr. Kelner, AUSA James Gillis called defense counsel only to notify us that he would not be calling Mr. Flynn as a witness, and that counsel would be receiving a gag order that prohibited counsel from disclosing that fact.

The actual 302 in question shows Kelner laying out evidence that Kian had lied about the role of Turkey in the project, and Flynn had either not informed or lied to Kelner about key issues relating to the filing. And just as Kelner laid out some of the most damning details, Powell complained that Kelner was being asked about the filing.

(U//FOUO) FLYNN did not inform KELNER that Fethullah GULEN was a focus of the FIG/INOVO project. FLYNN did not inform KELNER that ALPTEKIN was a conduit or go-between for FIG and Turkish officials during the project. FLYNN did not inform KELNER that ALPTEKIN talked to Turkish government officials about the FIG/INOVO project. FLYNN described the FIG/INOVO project as dealing with improving the economic relations between Turkey and the United States. FLYNN never provided inconsistences to KELNER on the work FIG provided to INOVO.

(U//FOUO) {Note: at approximately 4pm (approximately two hours into the interview of KELNER), Sidney Powell asked Turgeon why KELNER was being asked questions about FLYNN considering RAFIEKIAN was the defendant. Turgeon explained to Powell that KELNER could expect these types of questions during his cross examination by defense attorneys.}

(U//FOUO) KELNER did not recall having asked FLYNN about what/if any work product was completed by FIG for INOVO which pertained to Gulen. KELNER understood from FLYNN that FIG’s work for INOVO focused on the business environment in Turkey.

(U//FOUO) KELNER was informed by FLYNN the published 11/8/2016 Op-Ed article in The Hill was something he, FLYNN, had wanted to do out of his own interest. FLYNN wanted to show how Russia was attempting to create a wedge between Turkey and the United States. FLYNN informed KELNER the Op-Ed was not on behalf of FIG’s project with INOVO.

Worse, Judge Sullivan already ruled against Flynn, finding his waiver of conflict with Kelner both permissible and voluntary.

Rule 1.7(a)’s “absolute prohibition” on conflicting representations in the same matter is “inapplicable” where “the adverse positions to be taken relate to different matters.” D.C. Rules Prof’l Conduct R. 1.7(a) cmt. 3. Here, Mr. Flynn does not argue that his former counsel advanced adverse positions in this criminal matter. See Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 133 at 21; see also Def.’s Surreply, ECF No. 135 at 16. Instead, Mr. Flynn contends that his former counsel was an adverse witness in the case in the Eastern District of Virginia—a different jurisdiction and a different matter involving a different defendant. Furthermore, the government did not bring criminal charges based on the FARA filings against Mr. Flynn in this case or in the separate case in the Eastern District of Virginia. Thus, the Court will assume that Mr. Flynn relies on Rule 1.7(b) because he cites to Rule 1.7(c)(2), Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 133 at 21 n.14, and “FIG and [Mr.] Flynn subsequently retained Covington to represent them in connection with any potential FARA filing,” Rafiekian, 2019 WL 4647254, at *5.


Here, it is undisputed that this Court did not have the opportunity to address the conflict-of-interest issue, determine whether an actual conflict existed at the time, or decide whether Mr. Flynn’s waiver of the potential conflict of interest was knowing and voluntary. Cf. Iacangelo v. Georgetown Univ., 710 F. Supp. 2d 83, 94 (D.D.C. 2010) (scheduling a hearing to determine whether a client gave his “informed consent” to determine whether a law firm had a waivable conflict of interest). Mr. Flynn cites no controlling precedent to support the proposition that the government was required to bring the conflict-of-interest issue to the Court’s attention. See Def.’s Reply, ECF No. 133 at 22. And Mr. Flynn does not ask this Court to find—and the Court cannot find—that his waiver was neither knowing nor voluntary.

Admittedly, Powell has to repeat “unconflicted” over and over again, otherwise this attempt is even more foolish than the record laying out Flynn’s lies demonstrate. But she’s making claims that are likely to only infuriate Sullivan.

Flynn throws balls at the wall in a furious hope one will stick

Powell then lists three things that have happened recently to justify needing a continuance to blow up a plea deal she has obviously been planning on blowing up since June:

  • The DOJ IG report that says almost nothing about Flynn
  • The government’s provision — after just two months — of a bunch of 302s showing Flynn’s cooperation, but making no complaint about it
  • Sullivan’s own opinion that, Powell complains, doesn’t address the IG Report that neither side briefed to him

Except for a later reference, in a footnote, to the fact that a Supervisory Special Agent on his investigative team provided Trump the briefing that Flynn attended as his top National Security advisor (this is the single thing in the IG Report that really impacted Flynn), Flynn’s filing doesn’t explain why any of these things requires a delay.

Flynn claims to be surprised the government changed its sentencing recommendation that they said they were going to do in September

Again, Flynn has been planning to blow up this plea deal since last summer. Powell hasn’t hidden that fact. She has no real reason to blow it up, though. So, first, she cites a SCOTUS precedent that — aside from making it clear that if she wants to complain she has to do so now — otherwise works against every claim she makes (insofar as it said the government can show how a defendants subsequent conduct may reflect failure to accept responsibility).

This about-face places the government in breach of the plea agreement and triggers application of the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Puckett, 556 U.S. 129. Puckett requires any competent defense counsel in these circumstances to move to withdraw Mr. Flynn’s guilty plea for this reason alone. Id

Puckett is a Supreme Court decision that primarily had to do with when a defendant complained about the government changing its stance in a plea (which supports the timing of Flynn doing so here), but which Powell seems to include because it included language saying that such change violated his rights. Except Puckett also didn’t include a cooperation agreement — the part of Flynn’s plea that’s in most dispute — and ultimately SCOTUS held that Puckett’s sentence would have been fair in any case (not least because the government could have shown the defendant withdrew his acceptance of responsibility, as they are also doing here).

When a defendant agrees to a plea bargain, the Government takes on certain obligations. If those obligations are not met, the defendant is entitled to seek a remedy, which might in some cases be rescission of the agreement, allowing him to take back the consideration he has furnished, i.e., to withdraw his plea. But rescission is not the only possible remedy; in Santobello we allowed for a resentencing at which the Government would fully comply with the agreement—in effect, specific performance of the contract. 404 U. S., at 263. In any case, it is entirely clear that a breach does not cause the guilty plea, when entered, to have been unknowing or involuntary. It is precisely because the plea was knowing and voluntary (and hence valid) that the Government is obligated to uphold its side of the bargain.

In short, the only precedent Flynn relies on to justify blowing up this plea deal actually supports the government, not him.

The government is still mean

Which brings us to the most remarkable paragraph in this filing.

Mr. Flynn has instructed counsel to file this Motion to withdraw his plea now. The defense must file a Supplemental Motion to Withdraw for alternative additional reasons as soon as possible. Mr. Flynn will not plead guilty. Furthermore, he will not accede to the government’s demand that he “disavow” any statements made in his filings since he obtained new, unconflicted counsel. Michael T. Flynn is innocent. Mr. Flynn has cooperated with the government in good faith for two years. He gave the prosecution his full cooperation. “He held nothing back.” He endured massive, unnecessary, and frankly counterproductive demands on his time, his family, his scarce resources, and his life. The same cannot be said for the prosecution which has operated in bad faith from the inception of the “investigation” and continues relentlessly through this specious prosecution.

First, Powell says she “must” file a supplemental motion to withdraw the plea “as soon as possible.” Having not provided any real reason to do so here — aside from the government being mean — Sullivan is in no way obliged to let her file that follow-up motion. Powell says “Flynn will not plead guilty.” But he has already done so, twice, under oath! She says he will not disavow any statements, except that either he has to disavow his sworn grand jury testimony, or his subsequent statements, because they are fundamentally inconsistent (but they are consistent with his sworn guilty pleas). Perhaps most amazingly, in a filing where Powell never once claims that the primary crime to which Flynn pled, lying about Russia, was not a lie. He’s just innocent because committing a crime, for him, cannot be a crime, I guess. She ignores that Flynn reneged on his testimony so as to be able to claim he cooperated in good faith. She includes a quote — “He held nothing back,” — without citing it (it’s a comment Brandon Van Grack made in December 2018, before Flynn blew up the plea deal). She bitches about how much time it takes to cooperate (cooperation that he has blown up, requiring him to spend far more time blowing up his plea deal).

And then she says the government is mean again.

Flynn tricked the government into agreeing to a one month continuance

Curiously, it appears Flynn tricked the government into agreeing to a one month continuance, one Powell will presumably use to invent a real reason to withdraw his plea or hope that John Durham will find a Sparkle Pony.

Immediately after the government submitted its sentencing memo, Flynn’s lawyers started asking the government to agree to this continuance. They agreed to do so, but for the purpose of giving Flynn’s lawyers time to do a new sentencing memo.

We write to provide a response to your request for our position regarding your suggested amended sentencing dates in this case. In short, we do not oppose a continuance of the due date for your supplemental sentencing memorandum and the date of sentencing. In light of your request, we also ask that the Court schedule a due date for a government reply memorandum one week after the date upon which your supplemental sentencing memorandum is due.

But this was for sentencing, not for giving Powell time to come up with some reason why Flynn should not be charged with perjury for his sworn statements — before two judges and in the grand jury — that are inconsistent with his request to withdraw this plea.

Only after the defense got the agreement to continue sentencing did they inform the government that they were going to, instead, use the time blowing up the plea deal.

Defense counsel contacted the government shortly before filing this Motion to Withdraw the Plea. The government had not replied at the time of filing.

Thus far, neither the government nor Sullivan have responded to this filing. But both would be well within their rights to tell Flynn to fuck off, and prepare for sentencing in a week, as originally scheduled.

55 replies
    • joel fisher says:

      I half agree with you, maybe 3/4ths. It would be lovely to see Flynn in jail, but, too much jail (or too much fine) and Trump would commute the sentence right away. Sidney Powell, on the other hand has opened herself up to punishments over which the President has no control: court sanctions and the DC bar ethics committee. She might have to pay a lot of money and lose her law license at least for a while I’d bet against disbarment. But while she’s not able to practice, a guest gig on Fox awaits; she’s the savior of Flynn, after all. I’m pissed off just thinking about it. It seems to me that the way Powell has rather openly shoveled BS into a Federal Court over the last year or so is likely to draw the legitimate ire of Judge Sullivan. He’s in a position to let her have it. How many pointless hearings generated by bad faith filings have there been? Too many to count and all for the sole purpose of generating visible anger on the part of the judge (Unfair! Rigged system!) and to keep the ball in the air until the post election executive clemency festival.

  1. Mister Sterling says:

    “But both would be well within their rights to tell Flynn to fuck off, and prepare for sentencing in a week, as originally scheduled.”

    Or let him change his plea, and let him face life in prison if convicted? Maybe? I’d root for that. The Flynn case would stretch into Trump’s second term.

  2. joel fisher says:

    I’ve been waiting all morning for the EW comments on Flynn’s latest filing. Certainly, a commutation will cover all the perjury Flynn has committed. Seems to me he’s trying to extend the time he’s in court, so far, I have to admit with a fair deal of success. Anytime the prosecutors treat these bad faith filings with the contempt they deserve, Flynn is given ammo to whine to the Crook-in-Chief that he’s being treated unfairly and in so doing angling for a commutation of his jail sentence. Seems to be a given that the commutation will be in the mail the day after the election, but what if Flynn has to go to jail sooner than that? Will Trump risk the backlash?

    • Tom R. says:

      I agree this looks like a scam intended to push Flynn’s report-to-prison date past Tuesday November 3rd. There is zero chance of a pardon before that date, and a 100% chance after.

      Sullivan is no fool. He can see this as clearly as we can. Any reporting date before May 3rd will keep Flynn behind bars for the required 6 months, so the timing is not yet critical.

  3. Tom R. says:

    I, too, have been eagerly awaiting the EW analysis. Thanks!

    Didja notice on p.16 where it says “Mr. Flynn has instructed counsel to file this Motion” and also p.21 where they got Flynn to sign and certify “Reviewed, understood, and agreed”?

    Both seem weird. Usually lawyers just speak, and it goes without saying that they are speaking for the client. Perhaps Powell et al. don’t want Flynn to throw them under the bus along with his previous lawyers, arguing that they didn’t properly represent his interests.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    I’m at a loss as to what was in Flynn’s plea deal that required this flawed belly dance.

    Flynn lucked out, he used to have a good lawyer, he could probably have walked with no time served, despite that his senior military and government positions made his crimes more egregious and more deserving of punishment than had some junior staffer committed them.

    Is it ego? Is it blind obsession with the Cohn-Trump mantra of take no prisoners, never admit, always attack? Does this enhance his position, or help him avoid consequences or the likelihood that he can make wads of money in the future? Is a Trump pardon or commutation – an iffy proposition – worth any of this? Enquiring minds and all that.

    • orionATL says:

      my guess is that flynn is constructing a tale so convoluted that he can tell it for the rest of his life without fear of serious contradiction allowing him to claim that he was an honest, hard-working retired lt. general who served his country faithfully and well, but was mistreated, lied to, tricked, and maligned by a deep-state cabal out to destroy the presidency of donald trump.

      this should allow him to collect nice speaking fees from political and christian right wingers for the rest of his life. and maybe even restart a business venture.

      maybe even a movie deal: “i was a target of the fbi or out like flynn.”

    • BobCon says:

      The mystery to me is not that Flynn ran away from competent representation and a fair deal with prosecutors.

      The mystery is who was that sane and rational man who agreed to those things? He doesn’t seem like the guy we saw before and after.

  5. drouse says:

    I’m thinking that enraging Sullivan is the point. By now it should be clear that the best way to get Trump to act is make something a personal affront to him. Provoking the judge into taking an action that could be spun that way might be his best bet for a pardon. Call it Fox news justice. Of course with all else going on, I think Flynn and his lawyers have seriously misread the moment.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      I suspect Judge Sullivan is too experienced to fall for the defense tactic of doing something outrageous in order to elicit evidence of bias by the judge. His decisions are likely to be pointed and direct, but fully supported by ample precedent.

  6. Jenny says:

    Thanks Marcy. Wow – the title of this post speaks volumes.
    What goes around, comes around.
    Flynn projecting “Lock Her Up” at 2016 RNC. Now “Lock HIM Up” is a neon sign in his life.

  7. MB says:

    Flynn strikes me as someone who acts not merely “above the law”, but also “below the law”, “running circles around the law” and “on all sides (but not within) the law”. This entire administration is a collection of zealots whose primary skill is throwing symbolic spaghetti against symbolic walls, and upon noticing that at least some of the spaghetti is actually sticking, considers that a success and a job well done. Then they get back to throwing spaghetti on the next topic of their to-do list. Quite the crew of uber-aggressive magical thinkers. In a way, they’re acting like anarchists with relation to anything that smells remotely institutional, or “because Obama did it, I’m against it” or trying to be a catalyst for making the Rapture happen sooner. Ascribing the teensiest bit of rationality for a brief moment, this is a Hail Mary for a 11/4/20 pardon?? Desperate measures bring on desperate times.

  8. orionATL says:

    but did judge sullivan trick flynn into lying under oath? that’s the only question that counts.

    emptywheel, january 7, 2020:

     “… Flynn perjured himself before Judge Sullivan on December 18, 2018, when the judge had the prescience to put Flynn under oath.

    During the hearing, the Court engaged in a dialogue with the defendant concerning arguments in his sentencing memorandum that appeared to challenge the circumstances of the January 24 interview. See 12/18/2018 Hearing Tr. at 6-7. However, when questioned by the Court, the defendant declined to challenge the circumstances of that interview. Id. at 8. When pressed by the Court about whether he wanted to proceed with his guilty plea “[b]ecause you are guilty of this offense,” the defendant unequivocally responded, “Yes, Your Honor.” Id. at 16. And when the Court asked whether he was “continuing to accept responsibility for [his] false statements,” the defendant replied, “I am, Your Honor.” Id. at 10. The defendant’s recent conduct and statements dramatically differ from those representations to the Court, which he made under oath…”

    why the hell are we even having this discussion? it is time sullivan quit dicking around with the flynn case and gave the general the sentence he merits. if others with the power to do so want to undo sullivan’s and the government’s arguments for sentencing then that will be on them. right now, sullivan just needs to hand down a fair sentence and turn the case over to republican coverup politics. i don’t see how there are any more save-my-sorry-ass-from-jail games that can be played than already have been on this one.

    • Peterr says:

      Why are we having this discussion? Sullivan does not want to give Flynn any opening for getting a reversal on appeal.

      Sullivan took over this case midstream, and bent over backwards to give Flynn every opportunity to explain himself to Sullivan, so that he could not later bitch about a bad hand-off of the case to Sullivan. Sullivan wanted to make sure that if/when he accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, it was a done deal. Now that Flynn is trying to backtrack on that done deal, however, I suspect Sullivan will not be pleased.

      I am not a lawyer, but I can see the govt reply being a very short, very direct rebuttal. “Michael Flynn pleaded guilty, and the Court explored that pleading with him in great detail at the aborted December sentencing hearing. Upon reading this most recent motion, we are satisfied that the Court can recognize gaslighting when the Court sees it, and so we will not take up the Court’s time with further legal argumentation. Whether the court wants to sanction Mr. Flynn for lying in December or for lying in this motion, the government will be satisfied in either case.”

      • orionATL says:

        “why are we having…” redux?

        i understand that, peterr. i’m giving the good judge (and a good judge he) some advice (which i am confident he will appreciate). after more than a year, let it go!

        let it go to the appellate court and see what happens. sullivan has worked on this case a long time. he has been a patient judge despite his justifiably irritable language at times. flynn’s conduct is clear, documented, and unacceptably two-faced. if the powers that be want to find a loophole to slip him thru, then fine. they can deal with whatever consequences arise from their slipperiness. let the entire system be tested for good judgement, fairness, and a sense of justice meted out. judicial perfection is not possible and can certainly be used as a get out of jail card by those so inclined. to quote punaise, flynn’s conduct clearly merits some time in the pokey – in fact more time than he will likely ever get. for the well-connected, lying, fraud, robbery, and even murder can be profitable.

    • Peterr says:

      I am the very model of a Trump Lieutenant General
      I’ve information classified, important, and impeachable
      I know the names of Trumplings and I quote the fights historical
      With Marla and Ivana, in order categorical
      I’m very well acquainted, too, with matters most indictable
      I understand the penalties, though deem them unrecitable
      About the pow’rs of presidents I am teeming with a lot o’ news
      With many cheerful facts about the ways in which I’ve paid my dues

      I’m very good at brown-nosing and sucking up to Donald Trump
      I know the odious Democrats, who framed me – what a bunch of chumps
      In short, a pardon presidential I would be amenable.
      I am the very model of a Trump Lieutenant General

  9. orionATL says:

    i have to say I am getting increasingly annoyed to read that the special counsel’s team has again had to swallow exaggerated praise it had handed out to one or another of the trump cheating scandal miscreants to whom it had initially given a light sentence for what has proved to be ersatz cooperation.

    • P J Evans says:

      I wonder how much of that was due to not being able to get evidence from some people, or from lies they were told.

    • orionATL says:

      well now. thanks.

      i forgot about old ollie. its hard to keep these political thugs in mind without a scorecard.

  10. harpie says:



    7:19 AM · Jan 16, 2020

    BREAKING: Ukraine’s Interior Ministry announces criminal probe into alleged illegal surveillance of former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch after text messages released by House investigators showed Robert F. Hyde and Lev Parnas discussing her being tracked in Kyiv.

    7:38 AM · Jan 16, 2020

    BREAKING: Police in Ukraine are investigating the possible surveillance of former US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, according to the Interior Ministry.

    7:53 AM · Jan 16, 2020

    ANOTHER INVESTIGATION: Ukraine’s cyber police have opened an investigation into the reported hacking of Burisma, the company at the heart of the Trump impeachment process, the Interior Ministry announced. Ukrainian National Police are seeking cooperation from the FBI.

  11. Rugger9 says:

    I see Sullivan has delayed sentencing until 2/27. Between Powell and Flynn I’m not sure that will help them in a field of rakes (h/t Charlie Pierce, whap!) especially with more revelations about Palace peccadillos coming out daily.

    I would guess from the just-ordered reset date that Sullivan is not going to allow a new trial, so where would this get appealed to and how many Trumpie judges await there?

    • Rugger9 says:

      My guess is based upon the fact that a firm sentencing date is ordered and it’s not far off. But, IANAL.

  12. Che says:

    Folks shouldn’t forget Judge Sullivan’s extraordinary outburst in December 2018. After almost goading Flynn into rescinding his plea, Sullivan then began talking of Treason. Not coincidentally, Rachel Maddow had made that the theme of her Flynn coverage the very night before the hearing, conflating the Turkish lobbying with Flynn’s appointment as National Security Advisor. Giving the false impression Flynn was doing both at the same time. After a short recess Sullivan apologized for this bizarre brain snap.

    Flynn’s previous counsel should’ve demanded Sullivan recuse after that episode. I wouldn’t be surprised if Powell does so at the next hearing.

Comments are closed.