Mike Flynn Forgets He Was Shit-Canned by Presidents of Both Parties

In a lawsuit attempting to kill an existing subpoena from the January 6 Committee and an as-yet unidentified subpoena to Verizon, Mike Flynn accuses Bennie Thompson of opposing Barack Obama. That’s the only logical conclusion one can draw from Flynn’s claim that the people behind the subpoena of him, “belong to the political party that opposed the President under whom General Flynn served.”

The body that issued the Subpoena is composed of 9 members, 7 of whom belong to the political party that opposed the President under whom General Flynn served. The remaining two members were Republicans hand-picked by Speaker Pelosi because they were vocal opponents of former President Trump from within the Republican Party.

As Flynn himself points out in his lawsuit, he served Barack Obama as Defense Intelligence Agency head for over two years, a total of 744 days. He served Donald Trump as National Security Advisor for around 24 days, a laughably short tenure even by the standards of the Trump Administration.

Plaintiff Lieutenant General Michael Flynn is a retired Lieutenant General in the United States Army, served as the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from July 2012 to August 2014, and was the National Security Advisor at the start of the Trump Administration.

Mike Flynn was shit-canned by both Presidents.

Nevertheless, a man fired by Presidents of both parties wants to claim a mere subpoena is a witch hunt against him.

Flynn, predictably, gets a lot else wrong in this lawsuit. His depiction of how Billy Barr attempted, but — even after appointing a team that altered DOJ documents as part of their attempt — failed to blow up the prosecution of him gets details big and small wrong.

He was famously led into a perjury trap by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, pled guilty to making a false statement after the government threatened his son and then agreed not to prosecute his son if he pled guilty. He later sought to withdraw that plea under the guidance of new counsel after the discovery of exculpatory evidence that was withheld from him prior to his guilty plea. When the Department of Justice decided to drop the charges against him, a court stayed his sentencing while the Court considered whether to force the Department of Justice to prosecute him. Ultimately, General Flynn received a Presidential pardon.

There was no perjury trap, his very good Covington lawyers were especially worried about Flynn’s exposure as a secret agent of Turkey, none of the evidence was deemed to be exculpatory, and he had already been prosecuted.

It is true that after Sidney Powell did more harm then good, Trump pardoned the man he shit-canned. It’s also true that Flynn remained equivocal about whether Donald Trump knew about his efforts to undermine sanctions during the Transition — though transcripts of his calls with Sergey Kislyak show that he told Russia’s Ambassador, at least, that Trump did know.

But there are several details in this lawsuit — like all of these lawsuits challenging the January 6 Committee, which appear to be at least partly an attempt to coordinate cover stories — of interest.

As Josh Gerstein observed, the lawsuit is full of dated information.

On January 6, 2021, a large group of people in Washington, D.C., entered the U.S. Capitol, breached security, and disrupted the counting of Electoral College votes until order was restored. The U.S. Department of Justice has arrested more than 500 individuals in connection with those activities on January 6th. General Flynn was not part of, nor was he present, at the Capitol grounds during any of those activities at the Capitol that day. Like most Americans, he saw those troubling events unfold on television.


Former President Trump appealed the district court’s order, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals enjoined NARA from releasing the disputed Presidential records pending its ruling. See Mem. Op. 17, Trump v. Thompson, No. 1:21-cv-2769 (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2021).

On November 30, 2021, the D.C. Circuit held oral argument on the merits of former President Trump’s appeal. This case is still pending.

While I’m not surprised the Dhillon Law Group cited details about the January 6 investigation that are four months out of date, you’d think they — or Flynn, via Jesse Binall, who was part of the Sidney Powell team that represented him — would have heard of the legal thumping that the DC Circuit gave Jesse Binall on December 9.

As Katelyn Polantz observed, by filing this in his home district in Florida (albeit in the wrong district at first), Flynn sets up the possibility of a circuit split with the DC Circuit decision that Dhillon Law Group hasn’t heard about yet.

So this may be part of a concerted plan, but one that being implemented with the legal incompetence characteristic of Trump (and Flynn) lawyers.

Particularly given how dated this lawsuit is, I’m particularly interested in Flynn’s reliance on the investigation into Sidney Powell’s grift to explain his hesitations about cooperating with the Committee.

Flynn bases his knowledge about the investigation into Sidney Powell on a November 30 WaPo story (though he credits NYT with the scoop), not personal knowledge of the investigation.

In 2021, General Flynn was briefly a board member of a nonprofit founded and led by his defense counsel, Ms. Powell, called Defending the Republic. In September 2021, a federal prosecutor handling the January 6 Capitol attack as well as the criminal contempt of Congress proceedings against individuals referred by the Select Committee also subpoenaed the records of Defending the Republic in connection with a criminal investigation into its activities.


In September 2021, the Department of Justice obtained a grand jury subpoena for records of a nonprofit General Flynn briefly served as a director, which was founded and led by his criminal defense counsel, Sidney Powell. The subpoena was signed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting matters related to the January 6 Capitol attack as well as contempt of Congress charges against Stephen K. Bannon for not complying with the Committee’s subpoena. Isaac Stanley-Becker, Emma Brown, and Rosalind Helderman, Prosecutors Demanded Records of Sidney Powell’s Fundraising Groups As Part of Criminal Probe, NEW YORK TIMES, Nov. 30, 2021.

Here’s a December 1 Daily Beast story with other details of the investigation (which may come from Lin Wood or Patrick Byrne). Here’s my post noting that the virgin birth of the grift times awkwardly with Flynn’s own pardon.

In language immediately preceding one of those descriptions, Flynn misleadingly claims that the Committee subpoena against him starts “just before” DOJ “sought to dismiss the charges against him in May of 2020.”

(The Subpoena curiously seeks documents from General Flynn starting just before the Department of Justice sought to dismiss the charges against him in May of 2020, and long before the 2020 election or the January 2021 attack on the Capitol.) In late 2020, General Flynn publicly stated his concerns about the integrity of the 2020 elections, as did many other citizens. General Flynn did not organize or speak at any events on January 6 in Washington D.C.

The start date for the subpoena actually starts on April 1.

Still, I find it interesting that Flynn is so worried about what happened during Billy Barr’s failed attempt to blow up his prosecution. And I find it interesting that Flynn claims to have no firsthand knowledge of the investigation Molly Gaston is leading into Sidney Powell’s grift.

Incidentally, Gaston originally pulled three January 6 cases in the investigation’s early days, those of Robert Packer, Robert Gieswein, and Derrick Evans, just the latter of which, involving a then-West Virginia state politician, had any possible public corruption component. But, at a time of immense staffing shortages at DC’s US Attorney’s Office, she dropped off those cases on February 18 (in the case of Packer) and March 29 (in the case of Gieswein and Evans). I’ve long wondered what, in the weeks after Merrick Garland came in, became a higher priority for the DC US Attorney’s leading public corruption prosecutor. We now know one thing she picked up in the interim was the prosecution of Michael Riley, the Capitol Police Officer who advised rioter Jacob Hiles to delete Facebook posts about his role in the riot. And by September, Gaston’s grand jury investigation into Sidney Powell’s grift had started taking overt steps like subpoenaing Powell’s nonprofit.

Anyway, back to Mike Flynn.

Unlike the other people suing, Flynn appears to be uncertain about whether Verizon received a January 6 Committee subpoena targeting him. John Eastman returned the subpoena targeting him with his lawsuit. Alexander included the notice of the subpoena — dated December 2 — he received from Verizon. Meadows also included the notice of the subpoena.

But Flynn doesn’t include documentation like that to substantiate his basis for believing that Verizon got a subpoena targeting him. Rather, he says that he thinks Verizon got a subpoena targeting him — from the January 6 Committee — because they got one for Mark Meadows.

Upon information and belief, the Select Committee is not only targeting a wide variety of individuals with sweeping subpoenas, but also is obtaining extensive private records about various individuals—including cooperating witnesses—by issuing subpoenas to their telecommunications providers.

For example, the Select Committee issued a subpoena to Verizon Wireless seeking subscriber information and cell phone data associated with former White House Chief of Staff, Mark Meadows (the “Verizon Subpoena”). The subscriber information requested includes subscriber names and contact information, authorized users, time of service provided, account changes, associated IP addresses, and other metadata. The cell phone data requested could include all calls, text messages, and other records of communications associated with that phone number. This data can be used for historic cell site analysis. The Verizon Subpoena requested all of Mr. Meadows’ personal cell phone data for four months: from October 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021.

That is, unless Verizon has lost track of whom to bill for his cell service (or unless the General is confused about who is service provider is), it appears that Flynn — who was, for a period, on the board of the Powell nonprofit already being investigated by a grand jury in September — didn’t get a letter on December 2 alerting him that January 6 had subpoenaed his phone records.

Don’t get me wrong: particularly given his propensity to lie, Mike Flynn is not wrong to invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions from the January 6 Committee (though he still is on the hook for the document request). That would be true even if Molly Gaston weren’t investigating Sidney Powell, but with the investigation, he’s quite right to invoke the Fifth (again — he did so with the SSCI Russian investigation too).

But if there’s a reason why the House Committee didn’t feel the need to ask for his phone records, that may be the least of his worries.

The most interesting aspect of the January 6 investigation that no one is covering — not even in a NYT story on criminal referrals — is the means by and extent to which the Committee is deconflicting with DOJ. There must be a legislative affairs person doing this near full time, unless Thompson and Liz Cheney — the daughter of someone who played a key role in screwing up Iran-Contra by refusing to do this — are doing this at a higher level. But the story about whom the Committee hasn’t subpoenaed — which includes both Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, both known to be under investigation by DOJ — is as interesting as who they have.

73 replies
  1. joel fisher says:

    Be fair, EW; the entire GOP–not just Flynn–has forgotten everything they believed in before the Former’s decent down the escalator. When will we get to the question of how much 5th A privilege Flynn has post pardon? I was thinking, apparently stupidly, that the one upside of the Former’s end of term pardon spree was that the pardonees would have to start spilling the beans.

  2. The Old Redneck says:

    MD Florida is an interesting tactical choice on where to file. I don’t know much about Judge Mizelle; she is relatively new to the bench. But few judges in the MD Florida are going to be inclined to stick their necks out and disagree with the DC Circuit.
    I’m thinking Flynn’s lawyers are really placing their bets with the Eleventh Circuit. It hears appeals from the MD Florida and is conservative as hell. But even that court may find it hard to go along with what Flynn is selling.

      • The Old Redneck says:

        Yes. Mary Scriven, who is a no-nonsense judge, got it afterward. She disposed of the injunctive relief claim in a hurry.

        • bmaz says:

          “Disposed of” may be too strong, the dismissal was clearly without prejudice, which means it can either be refiled, or the case continue on a normal track with no injunctive relief. Guess we will see, but that slop initially filed went exactly nowhere.

        • Troutwaxer says:

          Doesn’t Congress have the Constitutional power to perform investigations? If so, why isn’t Flynn’s suit being denied with prejudice on this basis?

    • JohnForde says:

      I came across your chart of defendants from Aug 19
      “How a Trump Prosecution For January 6 Would Work”.
      Thank you.

  3. Benton says:

    I have been focusing on the possibility that DoD personnel intentionally planned to slow-roll a DCNG response to unrest on Jan 6. In my last comment, I wrote that the DoD IG dodges General Walker’s claim of an “unusual” restriction on QRF employment (see Mar 3 Senate HSGAC testimony). In fact, I found an indicator that the IG had relevant information and buried it. The QRF was a unit ready by 10 a.m. to respond to civil unrest in D.C. An additional 300 Guardsmen were also available to follow. (IGp47)

    Yesterday, I discovered that former Acting SecDef Miller was deceptive in his testimony before the House COR on May 12.

    Mr. JOHNSON. And you placed restrictions on the deployment of an additional 40 National Guard quick-reaction force who were staged nearby at Joint Base Andrews. Isn’t that correct?
    Mr. MILLER. I did not, no.
    Mr. JOHNSON. You did not place restrictions on the deployment of the quick reaction force?
    Mr. MILLER. No. General Walker had full authority to deploy the quick-reaction force, so he –
    Mr. JOHNSON. So you issued – so you issued no order restricting the deployment of those 40 quick-reaction forces?
    Mr. MILLER. I gave guidance that I wanted to be involved, but if he felt he needed to deploy the quick-reaction force on his own, he could do that on his own without my approval.

    Surely Miller reviewed his Jan 4 letter to SecArm McCarthy, which includes these lines:

    “You may employ the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) only as a last resort in response to a request from an appropriate civil authority. If the QRF is so employed, DCNG personnel will be clearly marked and/or distinguished from civilian law enforcement personnel, and you will notify me immediately upon your authorization.” (IGp113)

    And, surely Miller would have reviewed SecArm McCarthy’s Jan 5 letter to General Walker, which includes these lines:

    “I withhold authority to approve employment of the DCNG Quick Reaction Force (QRF) and will do so only as a last resort… I will require a concept of operation prior to authorizing employment of the QRF.” (IGp116)

    For broader implications of this, see Just Security’s new article: https://www.justsecurity.org/79623/crisis-of-command-the-pentagon-the-president-and-january-6/

    • Alan Charbonneau says:

      The analysis at Just Security is interesting in that DoD personnel were worried Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act and use those troops for his own ends. But while some people might have harbored those concerns, others seem to have been assisting the insurrectionists. Charles Flynn’s promotion less than 3 weeks prior to Jan 6 followed by Col Matthews calling Flynn an absolute liar leads me to believe more DoD stuff will follow.


      p.s. even if nobody had ulterior motives and the Just Security article is correct for all involved, the DoD being afraid of Trump staging a coup and misusing military power is an absolutely frightening scenario as well.

      • matt fischer says:

        Let that really sink in: CJCS Milley, SoD Miller, the ten living former secretaries of defense, et al. apparently anticipated and helped thwart a coup attempt by the former President of the United States.

      • Benton says:

        I think you make a good assessment of the situation. So many different agendas were being pursued and so many people seem to be lying now.

        General Walker has called for a retraction of the DoD IG report (link below). A DoD IG report was retracted in 2015, so it’s possible. I fortunately have a representative on the Armed Services Committee and a senator on the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee (both Dems). I’m planning to send a letter to both supporting a retraction, with a summary of what I’ve found (after two more relevant posts here).


      • fm says:

        The problem I see with this excuse it that Trump did nothing but sit in front of the tv gleefully watching the insurrectionists attack the Capital. He did not go on tv to tell them to stop nor call the military to get the DCNG to stop the insurrection. He did nothing. Doubtful he was even aware of the memo requiring pre operation approval by McCarthy. Or was he?

        • Rayne says:

          Page 244-245 of Costa and Woodward’s Peril frame the situation: Trump knew Pence was in hot water and sent a tweet bashing him 11 minutes after Pence had been evacuated from the Senate. Keith Kellogg was there and saw Trump’s reaction — he’s the one whose testimony will matter at the point when Pence was most at risk. Trump was doing nothing but watching the events unfold, and deliberately doing nothing save for that tweet.

          ADDER: Took a quick snap of part of the pages (sorry, don’t have my better camera or my scanner handy). Kellogg was shocked by Trump’s inaction — or what little action he took while sitting in comfort at the White House.

        • emptywheel says:

          And it was shortly after Kellogg testified that Cheney started talking about “inaction or action” proving his obstruction.

        • harpie says:

          TRUMP did NOT do nothing.
          TRUMP DID FAIL to act.

          10:49 AM · Dec 15, 2021

          Key words: “or inaction” Vice Chair @January6thCmte @RepLizCheney: “Whether Donald J. Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly sought to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes”

          Aligns with crim law prof’s analysis: [LINK]

          Links to:
          The Easiest Case for the Prosecution:
          Trump’s Aiding and Abetting Unlawful Occupation of the Capitol
          https://www.justsecurity.org/78718/the-easiest-case-for-the-prosecution-trumps-aiding-and-abetting-unlawful-occupation-of-the-capitol/ Albert W. Alschuler October 25, 2021

          Failing to prevent a crime usually does not make someone an accomplice, but it is sufficient when this person had a legal duty to intervene. … The Constitution gave Trump a clear legal duty to intervene.

          Dereliction of DUTY

  4. Bruce Fuentes says:

    I am no lawyer so I guess looking for some clarification of some thoughts. These lawsuits seem to be solely to slow things down. But they seem to me to show a fundamental misunderstanding of law and modern communication.
    There is a right that prevents self-incrimination, but that right does mean that there is a right to block all incriminating evidence, which seems to be their plan.
    What is the chance that warrants have already been served to gather the lion’s share of the information requested by subpoena? If prosecutors have a strong enough suspicion that the electronic communications show a crime would they not have already gotten much of this via a warrant? If there is a reasonable suspicion of foreign involvement(Flynn) could they have gotten info via a National Security Letter.
    I would also suspect that a lot of this communication involved multiple people. Do they realize that texts and other communications they were involved in will get to prosecutors and the committee from sources other than themselves? Records do not disappear. What I text or email is replicated on dozens of servers worldwide.

    • Dave_MB says:

      You understand it correctly. Fifth amendment privilege keeps you from testifying against yourself. It doesn’t protect from investigators finding out who you talked to and when. Records of communication is not testifying.

  5. WilliamOckham says:

    A big chunk of Flynn’s lawsuit is copy/paste from Meadows’ lawsuit (although Flynn’s lawyers added some footnotes). I wonder how Terwilliger feels about being plagiarized.
    Starting with this subheading:
    A. Formation, Composition, and Authority of the Select Committee

    Other than the added footnotes, Flynn paragraphs 25-52 appear to be identical to Meadows paragraphs 21-49 except that Flynn omits Meadows paragraph 40, a single sentence reading “The Select Committee has issued a wide range of subpoenas for documents and the testimony of witnesses.”

    Seems a little strange to me.

    • emptywheel says:

      I hadn’t compared that closely but noted that some of the dated information derived from Meadows.

      Again, coordinated by incompetents. Maybe they took out the ref to “wide range” to downplay that Flynn is also blowing off a subpoena for documents, making his non-compliance worse than Meandows’?

    • WilliamOckham says:

      Between the time that Meadows filed his motion and the time that Flynn filed his, several other targets filed similar motions to quash the Verizon subpoena. Alex Jones, Ali Alexander, and John Eastman (all individually) and the group of minor players (Corporale, et. al.). They all made much the same argument about the supposed illegitimacy of the Jan 6 Committee. Their lawyers all managed to use their own words. Given the multiple deficiencies that the judge identified in Flynn’s complaint, I guess this just really bad lawyering.

      Also, kudos to Just Security for pulling all this stuff together on their Jan 6 Clearinghouse page. Absolutely invaluable resources on that page.

  6. Cato the Censor says:

    I know this is pedantic of me, but since Flynn was a career Army officer, isn’t it the case that he served under several Presidents, to include Obama and Trump? Just being persnickety.

  7. TooLoose LeTruck says:

    Wow… what a swirling mess…

    IANAL, but it appears the basic defense strategy here is to throw as much ‘stuff’ up in the air as possible, turn out the lights, and run out the door screaming…

    And hope it works.


    • rip says:

      IANAL either. But since most of us ANAL, can we just ask those others (IAL) to self-identify – that would save so much acronym ink.

      If those IAL’s do so identify, would it be helpful to know their areas of expertise? Or better, those areas that they are just like the rest of us – IANAL.

      Meant to be humorous (BMAZ) but I don’t know how to interject some appropriate emoji here… :)

    • LaNita Jones says:

      Alice’s Adventure on the River Isis

      Alice’s Adventure Underground

      Alice’s Adventure Deep State

        • bmaz says:

          There literally used to be an Alice’s Restaurant on the pier in Malibu. Named after the song, but not related to Guthrie. It was a really fun place and very decent, if not quite spectacular, food and a great bar. When I was in Santa Monica during summers, I always tried to go every couple of weeks because the place was seriously cool.

        • bmaz says:

          Don’t think that is the same one. And certainly not on the Malibu Pier! The pier and sunset over the water was what really made the one in Malibu. The food was fairly good, but the setting magical.

  8. Peterr says:

    As harpie noted, the request for a temporary restraining order was denied — and the problems with basic legal issues and procedures continue. From NBC, with emphasis added:

    The judge noted that the committee postponed Flynn’s deposition to “a date to be determined.” And while the committee’s subpoena said he should produce the documents it requested by Nov. 23, “there is no evidence in the record as to the date by which the select committee now expects Flynn to comply with its document requests,” she said.

    For these and other reasons, the judge said “there is no basis to conclude that Flynn will face immediate and irreparable harm,” which is what he would have to demonstrate to get a restraining order.

    Scriven said Flynn’s lawyers also failed to follow the correct procedure for such requests. Federal rules require someone seeking a temporary restraining order to notify the other party — in this case, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and the Jan. 6 committee — or say why that notice shouldn’t be required. Flynn’s lawyers failed to do either, an omission, the judge said, that was fatal to his motion.

    Gotta say that this doesn’t cover Dhillon Law Group with glory.

    Hmmm . . .

    On their website, Dhillon Law Group represents themselves to be a “Business Litigation Law Firm” with four primary practice areas: Corporate litigation, employee rights, constitutional law, and digital law. Under ConLaw, they list three foci: First Amendment, Defamation, and Anti-Slapp.

    Seems to me that this is not a good fit for Flynn. But let’s look at the specific attorneys listed on the complaint . . .

    First up, lead attorney, DLG partner Matthew Sarelson:

    Matt practices business litigation and business torts, including partnership, shareholder, board and corporate disputes, fiduciary, fraud, franchise, banking and real estate litigation, as well as employment litigation and counseling.

    Matt also has an extensive but discreet executive compensation practice in which he counsels high-level managers, c-level officers, professional athletes and musicians, doctors, professors and law firm partners in employment and compensation contracts, severance agreements and non-compete and non-solicit restrictions.

    Not much there that appears relevant to squashing a congressional subpoena.

    Next, David Warrington:

    David Warrington is the leader of the Firm’s Political Law practice and a member of the firm’s Business and White Collar Litigation practices. Mr. Warrington is a corporate litigator and constitutional lawyer who represents corporations and individuals in high stakes litigation throughout the country.


    Mr. Warrington also leads the firm’s Political Law practice and is recognized as one of the leading Republican lawyers in the nation. As General Counsel for the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee he led the legal team for the $45 million 50 state campaign and led the legal team that fought the delegate challenges and Rules contest on behalf of Ron Paul delegates at 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida. He has been called the “Lawyer to the Liberty Movement.” Mr. Warrington served as counsel for the 2016 Trump Campaign to the Credentials, Platform, and Rules Committees at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio. Additionally, on behalf of the Trump Campaign, he successfully defended Trump delegates in a federal lawsuit brought by individuals who sought to challenge the ability of the Republican Party to set the rules for its delegate selection process.

    Mr. Warrington has been involved in some of the highest profile political campaigns and issues in the nation and regularly represents and advises elected officials, non-profit advocacy groups, trade associations, political consultants, and political action committees on all aspects of participation in the political process at both the state and federal levels. He actively litigates cases involving political liberty based on the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

    Mr. Warrington is a proud veteran of the United States Marine Corps.

    Now we’re getting somewhere. Not so much on the legal chops to deal with a congressional subpoena, but on the connections that made DLG attractive to Flynn. Warrington was clearly a big deal in getting Trump through the convention, and that little line at the end about his service as a Marine surely appeals to Flynn.

    My WAG is that he’s the real lead attorney, with Sarelson on the top line because he’s a member of the FL bar.

    Michael Columbo:

    When Mike attacks his client’s challenges, he aggressively hunts for the practical solution and wise strategy, analyzing the issues in consideration of the letter and spirit of the law, our rights, the procedural rules, precedent and past practice, public policy, the political context, economics, and justice. When analysis isn’t enough, he is ready to go to the mat for his clients at any time with first chair experience in over 20 trials taken to verdict before judges and juries in addition to appellate cases, countless contested hearings, and as counsel on both sides of the table in depositions and investigatory interrogations.

    In over two decades of law practice, Mike has been immersed in the interplay of law, government, and politics from multiple perspectives as few have. After serving as a law clerk to a civil trial judge, he prosecuted crimes as an Assistant United States Attorney, defended corporations in high-profile corruption investigations, investigated allegations of federal campaign finance violations as an FEC attorney, and counseled corporations, nonprofits, government officials, and high net worth individuals on compliance with state and federal political law rules and the defense of federal and state ethics enforcement actions.

    For someone who bills himself as the great analytical mind, signing on to a filing like this one does not provide much evidence to support his assertion. And to the extent that he drafted the filing . . . let’s just say analysis does not appear to be his strong suit. OTOH, he does appear to have more experience related to the ins and outs of governmental legal situations.

    Jesse Franklin-Murdock: “Jesse Franklin-Murdock joined Dhillon Law Group as an associate attorney in 2021 after clerking for U.S. District Judge Jill A. Otake in Honolulu. Jesse’s practice includes employment law, commercial litigation, and politics and election law.”

    Flynn seems to have hired — or someone hired for Flynn — some folks who are politically connected to TrumpWorld, but not positioned terribly well to handle the issues presented in this case. Yeah, that sounds about par for the course for TrumpWorld. Given that all four attorneys spelled their names correctly, maybe they’re even above par.

    Of course, that’s a very low bar.

    • TooLoose LeTruck says:

      That does beg the very good question, who’s paying for all of this?

      I can’t imagine the Dhillon Law Group is doing this pro bono… and I have to wonder if Flynn’s maxxed out his credit cards at this point…

    • Doctor My Eyes says:

      Thanks for the post and enjoyable commentary. It has been fascinating to watch, in a gape-mouthed way, low these many years. It seems all of these guys believe bullshit to be the essential ingredient of any enterprise they hope to convince other people they are pursuing. The moment that idea crystalized for me came in February 2020, the first press conference about the potential of Covid, when the squad of business-suit-clad United States Government Executive Branch personnel stood tall for the cameras, serious faces on, flanking Trump as he pseudo-reassured that they were ready for Covid, whatever it turned out to be. It was clear that they had already turned to PR as their only hope of weathering a storm they had a vague idea was on the way. They never even considered trying to handle Covid, and I think less because they didn’t care so much as that they never imagined in their wildest dreams that they could do anything competently. They well knew that they had no idea what to do. It’s all about lying and cheating. In a court, where important things are written down and the words one uses are taken seriously, this approach begins to falter.

      Is most of the spelling correct in this filing? That would be an improvement.

    • harpie says:

      Thanks for researching this! I agree with your assessment about Warrington.
      2016 Trump campaign/convention platform committee, huh?
      And that bit about being, [not just a Marine, but] a “proud” veteran Marine…

    • Leoghann says:

      And surely they didn’t enhance their curricula vitae in the least. Because adherence to fact seems to be this bunch’s weakest link.

  9. harpie says:

    J6 Committee requests information from JIM JORDAN:

    3:38 PM · Dec 22, 2021

    The Committee has requested that Rep Jim Jordan provide information for the committee’s investigation.

    Chair @BennieGThompson noted that Jordan was apparently in communication with the former President on 1/6 & he was reportedly involved in efforts to challenge election results.

    “During the multiple hours of violence, many efforts were made to reach President Trump…We understand that you had at least one and possibly multiple communications with President Trump on January 6th.

    We would like to discuss each such communication…” [screenshots]


    • BobCon says:

      I’m awfully curious what kind of background work may have already happened with regard to interviewing staff, pulling internal server and telecom records, and more that may well be in the authority of the House.

      I realize a lot of communications with Jordan, Perry et al and the Trump team happened on private devices, but I would bet congressional staff was still geting looped into scheduling, transmitting messages, and more, and a fair amount was happening via official channels. Lazy members of Congress will also often hand over personal passwords to staff to help them handle texts, emails, and voicemails.

      The odds of someone like Gosar or Jordan burning bridges with an underpaid scheduler aren’t zero, and it’s always possible one of those staffers has zero interest in racking up legal bills fighting a subpoena for someone who forced them to come to the office during the worst of Covid.

      • Leoghann says:

        In this same regard, a big question in my mind is whether a House committee, specifically this select committee, can issue subpoenas under seal, as can the FBI.

      • harpie says:

        wrt: JORDAN,:
        3:40 PM · Dec 22, 2021

        House Select Committee letter to Jim Jordan signals committee may already have testimony at a granular level of what Trump was doing in Oval during the attack.

        And raises questions re presidential pardons as attempted get out of jail free cards for individuals involved in Jan. 6

        2. Recall from earlier reporting Trump was contemplating pardons for Mark Meadows, Giuliani, and himself. Trump backed down when White House counsel said it risks obstruction of justice and threatens mass resignations. via our Mark Meadows timeline. [link] [More info]

  10. Jenny says:

    Thank you Dr. Marcy.

    Mike Flynn “shit-canned” by two Presidents; however, his brother General Charles Flynn, currently in charge of Pacific Command (approximately 900,000 troops) had questionable behavior on Jan 6th. Brothers of a feather flocking together?

    “What I believe in is I believe in law.” Michael T. Flynn

    • MMVA says:

      Let me try to correct the record regarding General Charles A. Flynn’s position. He is not “currently in charge of Pacific Command.” He is the Commanding General, United States Army Pacific (USARPAC). Nor does he have “approximately 900,000 troops” under his command. There are approximately 80,000 Soldiers in USARPAC.

      USARPAC is one of five subordinate component commands reporting to the United States Indo-Pacific Command (formerly United States Pacific Command), a unified combatant command, whose commander, a US Navy admiral, reports to the Secretary of Defense and the President. Military and civilian personnel strength is 380,000.

      Both commands are headquartered in Hawaii.

      Flynn’s nomination for appointment as General and Commanding General, United States Army Pacific, sailed through the Senate with ease; his nomination was forwarded by the President to the Senate on 30 November 2020 and he was confirmed by a voice vote on December 20, 2020. However, he didn’t assumed command of USARPAC until June 2021. I’m not sure why there was such a long delay between the time he was confirmed and the date he took command.

  11. Rayne says:

    D— from Florida: give it up. Your atrocious spelling alone trips the security fence.

    Debated about letting this one through just so you folks can see what kind of trollish nonsense shows up depending on the post content, but you can find the like on Facebook. This one thinks Flynn is owed something in spite of Flynn’s repeated violation of his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and Flynn’s blow-off of the warning he received on departure from the military about receiving payments from foreign governments.

    Flynn is owed exactly dick except a fair investigation and prosecution if/when charged.

    • Leoghann says:

      Flynn didn’t serve for free for 33 years. And his pension is rather nice. Free reign to break the law and conspire against the government of the United States is not something we owe anybody.

  12. Badger Robert says:

    Deconflicting? It suggests the committee knows some DofJ targets, and that Justice is conducting a wide ranging investigation.

  13. Vinnie Gambone says:

    Feeling as though I’ve entered into the first rings of Dant’s Hell.
    Clearly, the entire GOP strategy for dealing with Dems is simple,- ignore them. But do it in a way dripping with contempt and disparagement. It’s little more than just flipping the bird. Seems all a precurser to horrors. Grateful the DOJ and J6C continue to soldjier on even though they know, -there is no worse pain than work done in vain.

  14. harpie says:

    But the story about whom the Committee hasn’t subpoenaed — which includes both Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, both known to be under investigation by DOJ — is as interesting as who they have.

    Very interesting, indeed.
    How would one go about covering “the means by and extent to which the Committee is deconflicting with DOJ.”?

    DOJ has an Office of Legislative Affairs: https://www.justice.gov/ola

    • Leoghann says:

      And someone has already noted in an article (source is lost in my brain) that the Jan 6 Committee has a staff member who has practically been living there.

    • timbo says:

      Let’s hope that both the Committee and the DOJ are working on these individuals heavily to get testimony on the record. The GJ testimony from these folks must be an interesting hot potato at the moment…one hopes!

  15. harpie says:

    Marcy Retweeted this interesting thread by Teri Kanefield:

    9:55 AM · Dec 22, 2021

    There is a Twitter consensus that the purpose of all these lawsuits (like the one Flynn filed seeking an injunction against the select committee) is to “run out the clock.” This makes no sense because the clock runs until at least 2024 and the cases are moving quickly. 1/ […]

    The lawsuits are to give fodder to the right-wing propaganda network.
    Suing to stop the committee subpoenas can’t prevent prosecutors from setting [seeing?] the material via a search warrant.

    Flynn and friends don’t care what courts say because they don’t live in a world of facts. 5/

    They didn’t care what the courts said in the election fraud cases and they won’t care what the courts say in these.

    They are filing these cases to cloak their propaganda in legalistic terms. […]

  16. Tracy Lynn says:

    He served Donald Trump as National Security Advisor for around 24 days…

    That’s, what? Two Scaramuccis?

  17. Riktol says:

    Given that delay via bad faith lawsuits is the name of the game, how does the following sound: requesting an injunction that prevents them from filing lawsuits, if those suits have the aim of corruptly delaying the investigation of a congressional committee?

    Base it around 18 USC § 1503 “Whoever [first bit not applicable] corruptly [some not applicable bits] endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
    [b1 and b2 not applicable]
    b (3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.”

    (as a side note, whoever wrote that statute did not make it easy to read)

Comments are closed.