Something Big Is About to Happen in the Flynn Case

What does a new order from the judge in the case mean?

Is the Flynn case hurtling to a final reckoning? On October 24, former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s attorney, Sidney Powell, filed a bombshell brief in which she accused the prosecution, led by Robert Mueller alumnus Brandon Van Grack, of spearheading a politically motivated prosecution characterized by shocking (alleged) misconduct on the part of the investigators and the prosecution team.

Amid the allegations of hiding evidence, even destroying evidence, came a new accusation that cast doubt on the viability of the prosecution itself. Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to the crime of making false statements to the FBI. But we now learn that Flynn’s attorney has produced evidence that Flynn’s statement was actually edited and doctored by a group of FBI officials who were not present during the interview. These include the infamous Lisa Page (implicated in the Office of Inspector General report of political corruption in the investigations of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) and Andrew McCabe (former deputy director of the FBI, fired for lying about leaking). 

Powell wrote, “Overnight, the most important substantive changes were made to the Flynn 302. Those changes added an unequivocal statement that ‘Flynn stated he did not”—in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote.” 

But, the original notes of the interviewing agents showed, “Mr. Flynn was not even sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on the issue.” She points out that additional material was added to the account of Flynn’s statement that did not appear in the notes of the interviewing agents.

It’s simply impossible to understand how an American can be held criminally liable for making a “false statement” when the account of his “lie” was manipulated and doctored without his participation. 

In response to the Powell brief, the court dramatically cancelled the planned hearing writing, “In view of the parties’ comprehensive briefing concerning [109] Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Brady Material, the Court cancels the motion hearing previously scheduled for November 7, 2019. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 10/28/2019.”

The government responded with a short rebuff arguing that Flynn made these arguments at the wrong time and in the wrong form. It did not attempt to rebut the specific allegations or evidence and instead insisted that it should have the opportunity to address these charges in additional briefing.

In a shocking retort, the judge then fired back at the government with this order:

The gist of this order is that the government has less than three days to respond to Powell’s bombshells. It’s not enough time for a considered response which is an indication that the judge is frustrated and wants to move this case along. Along to what? Is he frustrated with Flynn’s attorney for raising new complicating arguments? Or is he about to lower the boom on the government for failing to be transparent to the court and Flynn? Stay tuned.


American Greatness and the New Criterion present:

‘Sovereignty or Submission?’

Sovereignty or submission? Whither the West? And more specifically, which way America? Will citizenship mean something distinctive and important and will the country be run for the benefit of its citizens or not? That’s the question that’s at the heart of this political moment and it’s the question that will be answered at the upcoming conference of the same name.

Will Americans be sovereign in their own country or will they be forced into servile submission? This conference will frame the 2020 election, but more than that. It will frame the fundamental question of our times.

Keynote Speaker: Tucker Carlson

Other speakers include:

Michael Anton                                 Roger Kimball

David Azerrad                                   Daniel McCarthy

Chris Buskirk                                    Stephen Moore

Angelo Codevilla                             James Piereson

John Fonte                                        Kiron Skinner

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry               John O’Sullivan

Victor Davis Hanson                       Balasz Orban

The populist phenomenon is often identified with the election of Donald Trump in 2016. But the political, moral, and social realities for which Trump was the symbol both predated his candidacy and achieved independent fulfillment in countries as disparate as the United Kingdom, Hungary, and Brazil.

At the center of the populist challenge, we believe, are two questions. The first revolves around the question of sovereignty: who governs a country? This question is at the center of all contemporary populist initiatives and has been posed with increasing urgency as the bureaucratic burden of what has come to be called the administration state has intruded more and more forcefully upon the political and social life of Western democracies.

The second key question, one related to the issue of sovereignty, concerns what Lincoln called “public sentiment”: the widespread, almost taken-for-granted yet nonetheless palpable affirmation by a people of their national identity. The erosion of national sovereignty to which populism is a response has been accompanied by an erosion of that shared national consensus. Increasingly, the traditional pillars of this consensus—the binding forces of family, religion, civic duty, and patriotic filiation—have faltered before the blandishments of transnational progressivism.

The debate sparked by these problems has turned on a number of high-profile issues which the Sovereignty or Submission conference seeks to address, including immigration, free trade, foreign policy, religious freedom, and the question of citizenship.

The conference is hosted by The Center for American Greatness and The New Criterion. It will take place on October 16, 2019 in Washington, D.C.

Registration is free, but seating is limited. Please register here.