Read that link only for comedic relief. It is almost without exception devoid of actual legal analysis, and relies on conjecture and character assassination, against an esteemed sitting federal judge in DC -- to try to "wrestle the narrative away" from the facts (now admitted, by Powell) that (i) she submitted altered evidence in this matter, without flagging it -- and that (ii) she discussed this criminal matter with the then-sitting president himself, A/K/A "Individual One" (and then as we earlier reported claimed an entirely non-existent executive privilege when pressed about what horses wre being traded, there!). Of course, Individual One is. . . the single person (other than Flynn himself) most likely to benefit from Mike Flynn's NOT going to jail (and thus NOT diming Trump himself out).
She bases her entire recusal notion/motion -- preposterously -- on the fact that Judge Sullivan understands how felony plea deals actually work. Which is what Flynn signed up for, of course. [If his claim is that his prior lawyers did a bad job on his defense, his remedy is to appeal -- after his own personally negotiated sentence is handed down -- not to go get a "Mulligan" from Bill Barr, by going through to Trump, himself.] The way these plea deals work is the indicted defendant (Flynn) pleads guilty to some fairly minor offenses, in return for cooperation against bigger fish (Trump, himself) -- with everyone in the courtroom well-knowing he could be charged, and likely convicted, of much more serious offenses -- up to and nearly including. . . treason (in this case). Significantly, Flynn repeatedly told Judge Sullivan under oath that he was guilty of these offenses. Yet in Powell's telling, it is bias, on Sullivan's part -- to make mention of these facts, after Flynn had done so, on the record. Precious; here's a bit of that nonsense:
. . .At what was scheduled as a “sentencing hearing” but became an “extended colloquy,” Judge Sullivan expressed his “disdain” and “disgust” for General Flynn’s conduct, stated that he “sold [his] country out,” and suggested that General Flynn had committed “treason.” Hr’g Tr., United States v. Flynn, No. 17-232, (D.D.C. Dec. 18, 2018) at 33, 36 (herein after “Hr’g Tr. 12-18-18”). There was no factual basis for these defamatory comments. Neither General Flynn’s plea to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001 nor the statement of offense made such allegations. . . .
Welp. I'll keep an eye on it -- but we should also keep an eye on Powell's arguable misconduct in discussing her client's case with. . . INDIVIDUAL ONE; and then trying to hide the substance of that discussion from Judge Sullivan (as well as offering into the record, a clearly "doctored" purported piece of evidence, without flagging it). Onward, grinning now. . . .
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment