Judge Makes BIG Decision In Case Regarding Gen. Michael Flynn

Many are still wondering why corrupt Obama-era figures have not been charged or held accountable for their actions, but former White House national security adviser Gen. Michael Flynn is still fighting for his freedom.

But things kicked up a notch this week when Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, presented evidence in court that was apparently so powerful the judge issued a surprise order.

Powell filed a brief on the public docket detailing evidence that federal prosecutors had withheld from her client.

The brief also detailed several instances of the FBI’s plot to set up Flynn, which went viral across Twitter last week and led many to call the targeting of Flynn “a disgrace.”

Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan, who is presiding over the Flynn criminal case, issued an order that certainly appears to mean even he was taken back by what he had read.

“In view of the parties’ comprehensive briefing concerning Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material, the Court cancels the motion hearing previously scheduled for November 5, 2019,” Sullivan’s order read.

The Federalist details what this order could mean:

It could mean one of two things. It could mean Sullivan had found the briefing sufficiently clear to allow him to render a decision on Powell’s motion to compel without the benefit of oral argument by the parties.

Or it could mean that the briefing was so detailed that Sullivan needed more time to study the arguments before engaging with counsel and intended to reschedule the hearing for later.

After Sullivan’s order canceling the November 5, 2019, hearing, the government filed a “Notice of Claims Raised and Relief Sought for the First Time In A Reply Brief,” which suggests federal prosecutors feared Sullivan had made up his mind — and it could be in favor of Flynn.

In their filing, the government complained that Flynn’s reply brief “seeks new relief and makes new claims, based on new arguments and new information.”

“Issues may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief,” federal prosecutors stressed, before suggesting that “by making new arguments for the first time in his Reply, the defendant has potentially placed this Court in the position of reviewing novel assertions and arguments that the defendant claims are essential to his cause without the benefit of the government’s factual responses and legal analysis.”

The government then highlighted several of the arguments Powell made in her reply brief, such as that “the government suppressed text messages that ‘would have made a material difference’ to the defendant”; “that the defendant’s false statements were not material; that the defendant’s attorneys were acting under an ‘intractable conflict of interest,’ which the government exploited to extract a guilty plea; and that the ‘FBI had no factual or legal basis for a criminal investigation.’”

Sullivan not limiting the additional briefing to specific Brady issues and instead directing the government to respond broadly to any “new relief, claims, arguments, and information,” suggests Sullivan was troubled by the new evidence presented by Flynn and Powell.

This is a sad case against Flynn, who served his country for decades. But he may be closer than ever before to having the case against him thrown out.

Send this to a friend