Judge Refuses To Withdraw Mike Flynn Guilty Plea Because He ‘Waived His Constitutional Rights’ When He Plead Guilty

On Monday, a federal judge rejected Lt. General Michael Flynn's requests for exculpatory information that was more-than-likely withheld by the FBI, saying that the former national security adviser had waived his fundamental constitutional rights by pleading guilty to making false statements.

What on Lucifer's black beach is going on?  Flynn made the guilty plea before he knew he was setup by corrupt federal prosecutors and FBI agents who used him to get Donald Trump, and who were causing him and his family to go bankrupt in legal fees.  The FBI then threatened to go after his son, and that's when Flynn plead guilty to make it all stop.

It's a real paradox.  Had Flynn knew he was being setup at the time by rogue, corrupt FBI agents and prosecutors, he never would have plead guilty, but because he plead guilty, he has no right to ask for his guilty plea to be withdrawn.

The written order from U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan went ahead and set a sentencing date of January 28 for Flynn's case, essentially ending any remaining hope that the general might see his guilty plea tossed out.

The most damning part of this whole thing is that the ruling came only days after DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz identified a mass of misconduct by FBI agents investigating former Trump aide Carter Page, including by a an agent who was unknown in the whole Spygate story, SSA is Joe Pientka,  who interviewed Flynn at the White House in January 2017.

From Fox News:

In his order, Flynn cited prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, formerly a member of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team, as saying, “[B]y pleading guilty in this case [Mr. Flynn] agrees to waive certain rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States,” including the right “to challenge the admissibility of evidence offered against [him.]”

Flynn's guilty pleas, Sullivan wrote, “effectively bar him from raising claims based on any evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” Even if Flynn had not waived his Fourth Amendment rights, Sullivan argued that Flynn still needed to “establish that the requested information is favorable” to his defense in order to obtain it — something he has “failed” to do, the judge said.

The order pushed the case closer to a resolution following months of challenges and arguments from Flynn's attorneys, who had leveled a series of accusations against the FBI and the Justice Department. Although the government has previously sought only probation for Flynn, that could change.

Sullivan argued in a 92-page opinion that Flynn's defense did not “explain how most of the requested information that the government has not already provided to him is relevant and material to his underlying offense.”

“Mr. Flynn cites no controlling precedent holding that an uncharged individual is entitled to Brady evidence during an ongoing criminal investigation,” Sullivan wrote, referring to exculpatory information possessed by the government. Sullivan added: “Under Brady … ‘the Government has no duty to disclose evidence that is neutral, speculative, or inculpatory, or evidence that is available to the defense from other sources.'”

Sullivan is saying that Brady evidence is only guaranteed during a trial, but they never got to a trial, because the Comey FBI scumbags were hitting Flynn so hard they were destroying his life and he plead guilty just to save his family from ruin.

Flynn argued that FBI agents altered official records of his White House interview. His attorney also referenced a purported conversation between Washington Post reporter David Ignatius and the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, claiming Clapper told the reporter “words to the effect of ‘take the kill shot on Flynn,'” after he reportedly obtained the transcript of Flynn's phone calls.  A spokesperson for Clapper called the allegation absurd.  Did anyone think Clapper would say, “Oh yeah.  I forgot about that.  Sorry, my bad.”

“It is undisputed that Mr. Flynn not only made those false statements to the FBI agents, but he also made the same false statements to the vice president and senior White House officials, who, in turn, repeated Mr. Flynn’s false statements to the American people on national television,” Sullivan wrote.

But get this.  Sullivan also wrote that one of Flynn’s legal briefs “lifted verbatim portions from a source without attribution” and cited rules of professional conduct barring deceit and dishonesty.

Flynn's lead attorney, Sidney Powell, said Sullivan's “decision is as wrong as it is disappointing.” The veteran lawyer added that “the plagiarism accusation makes no sense” and that she used it from one of her own cases as well as a brief primarily written by a friend whom she said she cited.

It's weird that the judge would make it appear that a legal argument is “ethically” required to rewrite the language on the document from a different brief making the same legal argument, especially when part of it was from the same lawyer and the other part was actually attributed.  So, what gives with this judge?  General Flynn was setup by a coup attempt against Donald Trump, a 30+ year military man is being railroaded because of circumstances that were created by the FBI and DOJ.

I hope they appeal right on up to the Supreme Court.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

get the newsletter

Receive infrequent Floglegs updates about upcoming episodes and general news.