Embattled Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn has hired well known defense attorney Sidney Powell to represent him before his sentencing hearing in Washington D.C.'s federal court. Flynn, who fired his attorney's last week, will still fully cooperate with the government in all cases pending, Powell told SaraACarter.com.

Former national security advisor Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn’s defense team filed a brief Tuesday with the court, asking once again to have Flynn’s case dismissed based on the court’s authority and the “government’s outrageous conduct and repeated Brady violations.”

The 19- page brief submitted by Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell comes on the heels of the appointment by Attorney General William Barr of Chief federal prosecutor from St. Louis, Jeffrey Jensen, to review the ongoing case against Flynn. According to reports, an official with the DOJ, said Jensen was selected weeks ago by Barr and is expected to review issues  raised by Flynn’s defense team.

“We hope the government will seriously consider this brief and our prior briefing from the independent perspective Mr. Jensen can provide, and take the steps to remedy this injustice and restore Rule Of Law,” Powell told SaraACarter.com. 

Powell has also stated that Flynn had been lied to by the FBI, leading Flynn to believe in the early stages of the bureau’s probe that he was not under investigation.

Jensen’s role will be a crucial part of Flynn’s overall case and accusations that prosecutors engaged in misconduct. Further, evidence revealed in the DOJ’s Inspector General’s report regarding Flynn substantiates concerns brought forth by Powell that her client was forced into pleading guilty and that information has been knowingly withheld by prosecutors from the defense.

Flynn, who originally pleaded guilty in 2017 to one count of lying to the FBI, withdrew his guilty plea in mid-January, stating to the court that he was coerced into the plea by the prosecutors who threatened they would retaliate by going after his son, Michael Flynn Jr., who had previously worked with him at his former business, the Flynn Intel Group.

“When FBI agents came to the White House on January 24, 2017, I did not lie to them,” said Flynn. “I believed I was honest with them to the best of my recollection at the time. I still don’t remember if I discussed sanctions on a phone call with Ambassador [Sergey] Kislyak, nor do I remember if we discussed the details of a UN vote on Israel.”

Flynn stated that he would have “never would have pled guilty” if the FBI would have been straight forward with him about the interview and the fact that the two agents believed he did not lie as well. Both FBI officials stated that Flynn had a  “sure demeanor” and “did not give any indication of deception.”

Moreover, Powell stated in an explosive revelation in January that the FBI’s first 302 interview with Flynn has never been produced by the government. The 302 document is basically the FBI’s report on its interview with Flynn.

In Tuesday’s brief, Powell argues that “There are two bases on which the Court could dismiss Mr. Flynn’s case: the first is when there has been a due process violation, and the second is an exercise of a federal court’s supervisory authority.”

Powell argues both are applicable to Flynn’s case.

She argues in her brief that after more than two years of the Court’s order to turn over evidence to the defense, she discovered “from a stunning report of the Inspector General (IG) that one of the two FBI agents, who broke all protocols to interview Mr. Flynn in the White House on January 24, 2017, was surreptitious participant in a presidential briefing on August 17,2016.”

Basically, the FBI sent agents not to brief President Donald Trump, but to actually participate in spying on him, as well as members of his campaign, based on the IG report’s findings.

The information Powell was referring to was the fact that the FBI had approved agents to spy on Flynn as early as August, 2016 during the presidential briefing and did so to prepare themselves for a possible future interview Flynn Trump won the election. Trump won and the FBI proceeded with its plans to interview Flynn in January, 2017, however, the information was never revealed to Flynn’s defense team.

She noted that the FBI had assigned him in August, 2016 “specifically to collect information from and about Mr. Flynn to give the FBI further advantage and insights in the agents’ plan to interview Mr. Flynn in the White House if Trump won the election.”

Further, “the IG report revealed conduct of this agent and in the highest tiers of the FBI that is indeed ‘so grossly shocking and so outrageous as to violate the universal sense of justice.”

She argues that the FBI agent, referred to in IG Michael Horowitz’s report as SSA 1, “was inserted into a presidential briefing because Mr. Flynn was attending, to ‘gain assessment and possibly some level of familiarity with Flynn’ and to have something to Fall back on in the event the FBI decided to interview Mr. Flynn directly.”

The fact that government prosecutors withheld such vital information for Flynn’s defense, Powell argued, is reason enough to dismiss.

“It was material to Mr. Flynn’s defense every day from January 24, 2017, to the day this court entered its Brady order, ECF No. 20, and it was material for every day of the 305 days from the time this Court entered that order until Mr. Flynn appeared before this court on December, 18, 2018, ostensibly to be sentenced,” Powell said in her brief.

She argues that had Flynn been sentenced originally on Dec. 18, 2018 “he would have been serving time” while government prosecutor Brandon Van Grack “hid this extraordinary information that not only magnifies by ten the importance of SSA 1’s assessment of Mr. Flynn’s honesty but also evinces an unprecedented act of investigatory intrusion into a trusted presidential briefing.”