Justice Department prosecutors in the case against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn are asking the court for an additional three weeks continuance on the case, citing the review of “voluminous” documents submitted by Flynn’s former legal team that represented him for a span 30 months.
The status report was filed by prosecutors Friday in anticipation of a scheduled hearing on April 3. Justice Department prosecutors stated in the status report that the documents provided by Flynn’s former legal counsel with Covington and Burling “are voluminous, span numerous topics that arose during Covington’s 30-month representation of Mr. Flynn, and include many pages of sometimes difficult-to-decipher handwritten notes.”
“The government needs additional time to digest this information and any additional information that Covington may provide,” the status report stated. “In order to allow the government adequate time to review the materials that have been produced and to request, receive, and review any follow-up information or documents, the government respectfully asks this Court to allow the government three additional weeks to provide a further status update and, if feasible, a proposed briefing schedule.”
In February, Attorney General William Barr ordered a re-examination of several high-profile cases, including Flynns. The re-examination of Flynn’s case will be headed by U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Jensen of St. Louis. According to sources familiar with the matter, Jensen will be working with Brandon Van Grack, who is the former prosecutor that pursued the case against Flynn during Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel investigation.
In March, President Donald Trump tweeted he was ‘strongly considering’ a pardon Flynn. He said “after destroying his life & that of his wonderful family (and many others also) the FBI, working in conjunction with the Department of Justice has lost” his records.
Flynn’s defense attorney Sidney Powell told this reporter that Flynn “would wear a pardon like a badge of honor.” She cautioned, however, that the DOJ should intervene before a pardon is even necessary. Powell filed a supplemental motion to withdraw his guilty plea in January. In it, she cited the failure of his previous counsel, Covington and Burling, to timely, fully and correctly advise him of the firm’s ‘conflict of interest in his case’ regarding the Foreign Agents Registration Act form it filed on his behalf. Moreover, she argues that the conflict was so severe the firm was required to withdraw from the matter. He could not consent.
In fact, in Powell’s supplemental motion filed in January, she argued that Flynn’s former counsel “betrayed” him. Powell filed the motion to withdraw his plea just days after Flynn’s prosecutors made a major reversal asking the court to put Flynn in jail for up to six months. Shortly after, prosecutors reversed the jail time recommendation.
Powell told SaraACarter.com Friday that “as the government seeks an additional three weeks to work with Covington and Burling LLP against General Flynn, we are reminded again of this egregious injustice against an American hero.”
“The FBI and DOJ made up this ‘case,’ threatened to indict his son the next day if he did not plead guilty, hid–and are still hiding–the evidence that shows he is innocent, and they knew that all along,” she added. “Clapper and Brennan and others knew that Flynn intended to audit and clean out the corrupt intelligence agencies. They and the FBI targeted him to destroy with this false prosecution. Every day the government delays in dismissing this persecution is a disgrace for anything called “Justice” and an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars.”
You may like
Historic House Vote Expels Rep. George Santos Amidst Scandal
In a turn of events, the House of Representatives made history on Friday with a vote to expel Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.), marking the first such expulsion in over two decades. A moment fraught with gravity unfolded as Speaker Mike Johnson wielded his gavel to formalize Santos’ removal, setting a precedent in congressional annals.
Santos, indicted on 23 counts related to wire fraud, identity theft, and other charges, has not faced conviction but stands accused of misusing campaign funds for opulent purchases. The bipartisan vote, tallying 311 to 114, signaled robust support for expulsion, with a marginally higher number of Republicans opting to retain Santos.
Questions loomed as Speaker Johnson left the chamber, his silence leaving the fate of the ongoing government spending battle uncertain. According to reports from Fox News, Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer emphasized the non-partisan nature of the decision, asserting that members concluded Santos had tarnished the House’s reputation and was unfit for representation.
Within the GOP, conflicting opinions emerged, with Rep. Darrell Issa arguing against expulsion, citing the presumption of innocence. The tight-lipped stance of the House Ethics Committee played a pivotal role in the deliberations.
Conversely, members of the New York Republican delegation, led by Rep. Marc Molinaro, asserted Santos’ commission of crimes, justifying expulsion based on a comprehensive investigation.
Santos himself predicted the outcome in an exclusive morning interview on “FOX & Friends.” This vote not only underlines the House’s rare use of expulsion powers but also sets a critical precedent in handling members facing severe legal challenges.
You may like
Media7 days ago
Robert De Niro anti-Trump speech mysteriously replaced in teleprompter at Awards Show
education5 days ago
Department of Education Office of Civil Rights opens investigation into Harvard University
Nation7 days ago
Political Gambit or Defense Strategy? Hunter Biden’s Aggressive Testimony Plans Stir Democratic Intrigue
Israel6 days ago
Israeli Military says Hamas violated ceasefire agreement by firing at IDF troops