By withdrawing from his agreement to plead guilty, Michael Flynn may expose more FBI corruption.
Michael Flynn seems to be about to withdraw his guilty plea not because of some trick his lawyers pull off but because the judge ordered Mueller to turn over all exculpatory evidence to his lawyers. The judge seems to suspect something!
There are all sorts of possible consequences to this reversal, including the exposure of more federal corruption.
The Federalist summarizes the possibilities in a long article: “How A Plea Reversal From Michael Flynn Could Uncover More Federal Corruption.”
Here’s a snip from the ending:
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor and author of “Licensed to Lie: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice,” writes that Flynn should withdraw his guilty plea and suggests that [Judge Emmet] Sullivan, as “the country’s premier jurist experienced in the abuses of our Department of Justice, . . . is the best person to confront the egregious government misconduct that has led to and been perpetrated by the Mueller-Weissmann ‘investigation’ and to right the injustices that have arisen from it.”
Friday’s order suggests Sullivan is ready to do just that. That order consisted of an updated standing order detailing the government’s obligations under Brady. 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.
It was subtle, but significant given the posture of this case: 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.”
The change was significant because it indicates that, if the government did not provide Flynn material evidence during plea negotiations, Flynn has grounds to withdraw his plea. Sullivan’s revised standing order made that point clear, too—well, at least for Flynn’s lawyers. To explain: The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if the prosecution withholds exculpatory evidence during plea negotiations. The lower federal courts are split on this question. In his revised standing order issued on Friday, Sullivan dropped 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. After the spanking Sullivan gave the prosecutors in the Stevens case, Mueller is on notice as well.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com