Posted by Curt on 17 June, 2020 at 12:43 pm. 2 comments already!

Loading

Sidney Powell, the defense attorney for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, filed a scathing response in the court Wednesday against federal Judge John Gleeson’s amicus brief, which asked the court to reject the Justice Department’s request to drop all charges against Flynn. Powell’s motion is powerful and contains a lengthy time-line revealing the stunning evidence discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, as well as, the litany of new evidence uncovered by U.S. Attorney Jeffery Jensen, who was appointed by the Justice Department to conduct an independent review of Flynn’s case.

Powell argues in her brief that the “irony and sheer duplicity” of Gleeson’s accusations “against the Justice Department now—which is finally exposing the truth – is stunning.”

Gleeson submitted his lengthy brief on July 10, on behalf of D.C. Federal Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who appointed him as the amicus and is refusing to drop the case against Flynn. He is doing all this despite the fact that both the Justice Department and defense agree the charges should be dropped against President Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor.

Powell also pointed out in her motion of opposition Wednesday that Gleeson’s amicus filing on behalf of Sullivan is a “wrap-up smear” against Flynn.



“It demonstrates the difference between a Department of Prosecutions and a Department of Justice,” Powell argues in her conclusion regarding Gleeson’s amicus. “It shows how the Department of Justice, as the government’s representative in every federal criminal case, has the power to walk into courtrooms and ask judges to remedy injustices. For these reasons and those stated in our other briefs, the only lawful action this court can take is to dismiss the case with prejudice on the Government’s motion and vacate the plea.”

Further Powell states in her motion, that Gleeson’s “Amicus elides the reality of the egregious government misconduct of the FBI Agents—particularly that of [former FBI Director James] Comey, {Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe, [former Special Agent Peter] Strzok, [Former FBI Attorney Lisa] Page, [FBI Special Agent] Joe Pientka, [former FBI Assistant of Counterintelligence Bill] Priestap and others who met repeatedly to pursue the targeted “take-out” of General Flynn for their political reasons and those of the “entirety lame duck usic.” Much of this has been revealed in the December 19, 2019, IG Report, the 86 pages of newly produced exonerating material produced by U.S. Attorney Jensen, filed in the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 198), and hundreds of the texts between Strzok and Page demonstrating abject bias.”

“Amicus is lost down the rabbit hole on the other side of the looking glass— where “nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would,” argues Powell.

Last week, Powell argued before the U.S. District Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit against Sullivan’s decision to appoint Gleeson. She noted that the government submitted an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution based on the discovery of “extraordinary exculpatory evidence that came to light from an independent review… It can not go on any longer.”

Powell referred to Jensen, who was personally appointed by Attorney General William Barr, when evidence of FBI malfeasance surfaced in Flynn’s case. Jensen discovered through his investigation exculpatory evidence revealing that senior FBI and Justice Department officials withheld significant information from Flynn’s defense that would have played a crucial role in his case. One piece of evidence, was a January 4, FBI memo that stated that the investigation into Flynn should be dropped because no derogatory information had been found on the three star general. That memo was issued a day before a meeting with President Obama at the White House, along with other senior officials from the administration about Flynn. Shortly after, former Special Agent Peter Strzok, who led the probe against the Trump campaign, decided not to drop the investigation against Flynn. Strzok, along with FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka (which is discussed in detail further in this article), were sent to the White House on January 24, 2017 to conduct the infamous ‘perjury trap’ interview with Flynn.

In fact, Comey has previously joked that they sprung the interview on Flynn, who had no counsel present, and was set up by the FBI, despite the fact that the agents who interviewed him did not believe he was lying to them during the interview.

THIS COURT EXUVIATED ANY APPEARANCE OF NEUTRALITY WHEN IT UNLAWFULLY APPOINTED AMICUS AS ITS OWN ADVERSARY TO MAKE THESE SPECIOUS ARGUMENTS, SIDNEY POWELL

Gleeson’s amicus against Flynn “is an affront to the Rule of Law and a raging insult to the citizens of this country who see the abject corruption in this political assassination by prosecution. This court exuviated any appearance of neutrality when it unlawfully appointed Amicus as its own adversary to make these specious arguments,” Powell argued in her filing.

Last week, Gleeson submitted his lengthy amicus on behalf Sullivan, saying the Justice Departments decision to drop the charges against Flynn is a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” and urged a court to reject its attempt to drop the criminal case in his 73-page brief.

Recently SaraACarter.com reported on Gleeson’s connections to former Special Counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who was the top prosecutor for Robert Mueller in targeting Flynn and other Trump officials.

Gleeson’s past connections to Weissmann have been a topic of scrutiny, as I previously reported.

Gleeson argued that Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during a 2017 interview and that there is no real recourse for change – in fact, he stated in his argument that the court should also factor into its sentencing Flynn his withdrawal of that guilty plea, saying to withdraw is perjury.

“It really is truly unbelievable,” said David Schoen, a civil rights and defense attorney.

“I’m going to say to you that John Gleeson is one of the last people whoever should have been put in this position. If we’re concerned about the integrity of the system, John Gleeson goes back side by side colleagues for many years, with none other than Andrew Weissmann.”

In fact, Schoen said based on the relationship with Weissmann, Gleeson has a major conflict of interest and would almost likely argue on behalf of his former colleague. Schoen, who has represented the Democratic Party in the past, said there is significant evidence that has been discovered that exonerates Flynn and exposes the FBI’s malfeasance.

The timeline established in Powell’s motion is truly powerful and reveals that evidence.

Powell also argues Flynn never withheld any information from the United States government and always briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency of any travels or foreign contacts. Flynn previously served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama.

“Moreover, in evidence still withheld are General Flynn’s briefings to the DIA on all foreign contacts,” she stated in her motion.

“In addition, it is only the Government’s alleged false statements that were false. Flynn Intel Group did nothing in secret. Former CIA Director James Woolsey and former FBI executive Brian McCauley were at the only meeting that involved a “Turkish official.” General Flynn fully briefed DIA on that meeting, and on advice of counsel, Flynn Intel Group had timely filed a Lobbying Disclosure Act form. Multiple lawyers and firms deemed no FARA registration was required at all.”

But the timeline is stunning and for those who have been following the case of Flynn closely since I began reporting on it more than four years ago it exposes the actions of former FBI Director James Comey’s team in targeting Flynn and the Trump campaign.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x