Disturbing new information has recently come to light in the Russia collusion investigation, and it’s not the information that the left wanted it to be. Despite the best efforts of the DNC, the Muller investigation didn’t uncover anything that would negate the election results. In fact, the shroud of mystery has been lifted, and what could have been used to cast doubt, with no real evidence for years has now been proved to be just another misdirect.
The most recent information uncovered is now pointing to the distinct possibility that the facade was pushed too far, and a lifelong public servant who’s reputation was dragged through the mud is ready to set the record straight. Michael Flynn was put under the microscope when he was nominated to be a part of the Trump Administration. He was also one of the first casualties to the Russia collusion story. Oddly, he went down without much of a fight, and his replacement was quickly found and installed.
However, the investigation is now coming to a close, the blame has been placed and Flynn isn’t so sure that any of it should have been on him. The Daily Wire reports that a motion has been filed to withdraw his guilty plea:
“‘A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works,’ declared The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland on Friday.
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued a so-called ‘Brady’ order on Friday in United States v. Flynn that Cleveland, a lawyer, says ‘likely’ stands as an indication that the former Trump national security advisor is looking to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct.
Flynn was charged with lying to the FBI during the Mueller probe on November 30. The former Trump advisor pleaded guilty on December 1 before federal judge Rudolph Contreras, but less than one week later, the case was reassigned under Judge Sullivan.
‘On the surface, Friday’s order seems inconsequential, but in comparing the December 12, 2017, version to the February 16, 2018, version, one substantive change stood out,’ explained Cleveland.
Here’s what she noticed: ‘The revised version added one sentence specifying that the government’s obligation to produce evidence material either to the defendant’s guilt or punishment ‘includes producing, during plea negotiations, any exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession.”
This add-on is significant, she argues, because it “indicates that, if the government did not provide Flynn material evidence during plea negotiations, Flynn has grounds to withdraw his plea.”
Cleveland acknowledges that it’s unclear if Sullivan ‘modified the standing order in response to special concerns in the Flynn case,’ but noted that ‘it differs from the model text he included in his 2016 article, as well as the standing order he used most recently in a criminal case from August 2017.’
Moreover, in the revised order, the judge added ‘a lengthy footnote’ ‘detailing the case law and setting forth his position that, if material exculpatory evidence is withheld during plea negotiations, a defendant is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea.’
‘Flynn’s attorneys now know what to do should Mueller’s team disclose such evidence,’ argues Cleveland.
In the wake of the release of the House Intelligence Committee memo on possible FISA court abuses and Grassley-Graham memo, numerous pundits have argued in support of the idea that Flynn has grounds to move to withdraw his guilty plea.”
This raises all kinds of questions. It makes us wonder, not only was Flynn treated badly just to serve the left’s political agenda? And if so, who else has fallen prey to their traps. As it turns out, Flynn might not have been alone in his quest to clear his name. According to The Federalist, his case was unexplainedly turned over to another judge who put pressure on the prosecution to cooperate
“To recap: On November 30, 2017, prosecutors working for Mueller charged former Trump national security advisor Flynn with lying to FBI agents. The following day, Flynn pled guilty before federal judge Rudolph Contreras. Less than a week later — and without explanation — Flynn’s case was reassigned to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.
One of Sullivan’s first orders of business was to enter a standing order, on December 12, 2017, directing ‘the government to produce to defendant in a timely manner – including during plea negotiations – any evidence in its possession that is favorable to defendant and material either to defendant’s guilt or punishment.’ Sullivan’s standing order further directed the government, if it ‘has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material,” to “submit such information to the Court for in camera review.”
Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article: ‘Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.” A Brady order directs the government to disclose all exculpatory evidence to defense counsel, as required by Brady v. Maryland. The Stevens case, of course, is the government’s corrupt prosecution of the late Senator[sic] Ted Stevens—an investigation and prosecution which, as Sullivan put it, “were permeated by the systematic concealment of significant exculpatory evidence. . . .’
While the December standing order represented Sullivan’s normal practice, as both McCarthy and York noted, Flynn had already pled guilty. In his plea agreement, Flynn agreed to ‘forego the right to any further discovery or disclosures of information not already provided at the time of the entry of Flynn’s guilty plea.’ On Wednesday, however, the attorneys in the Flynn case presented the court an agreed-upon protective order governing the use of the material — including sensitive material — the special counsel’s office provides Flynn. This indicates Mueller’s team will not fight Sullivan’s standing order based on the terms of Flynn’s plea agreement.”
In other words, Flynn’s guilty plea meant that he didn’t have to receive any more information from the prosecution, by law, but a judge with a nose for justice decided that he should. We don’t completely understand why this is happening, or what the details of the case are, but we do know that the other shoe has yet to drop. Somebody is pulling strings, and we’re about to find out who it is.