Connect with us


Powell Files Stunning Motion Against Gleeson: It’s A ‘wrap-up smear’ against Flynn.



michael flynn case

Sidney Powell, the defense attorney for Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, filed a scathing response in the court Wednesday against federal Judge John Gleeson’s amicus brief, which asked the court to reject the Justice Department’s request to drop all charges against Flynn. Powell’s motion is powerful and contains a lengthy time-line revealing the stunning evidence discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, as well as, the litany of new evidence uncovered by U.S. Attorney Jeffery Jensen, who was appointed by the Justice Department to conduct an independent review of Flynn’s case.

Powell argues in her brief that the “irony and sheer duplicity” of Gleeson’s accusations “against the Justice Department now—which is finally exposing the truth—is stunning.”

Gleeson submitted his lengthy brief on July 10, on behalf of D.C. Federal Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who appointed him as the amicus and is refusing to drop the case against Flynn. He is doing all this despite the fact that both the Justice Department and defense agree the charges should be dropped against President Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor.

Powell also pointed out in her motion of opposition Wednesday that Gleeson’s amicus filing on behalf of Sullivan is a “wrap-up smear” against Flynn.

“It demonstrates the difference between a Department of Prosecutions and a Department of Justice,” Powell argues in her conclusion regarding Gleeson’s amicus. “It shows how the Department of Justice, as the government’s representative in every federal criminal case, has the power to walk into courtrooms and ask judges to remedy injustices. For these reasons and those stated in our other briefs, the only lawful action this court can take is to dismiss the case with prejudice on the Government’s motion and vacate the plea.”

Further Powell states in her motion, that Gleeson’s “Amicus elides the reality of the egregious government misconduct of the FBI Agents—particularly that of [former FBI Director James] Comey, {Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe, [former Special Agent Peter] Strzok, [Former FBI Attorney Lisa] Page, [FBI Special Agent] Joe Pientka, [former FBI Assistant of Counterintelligence Bill] Priestap and others who met repeatedly to pursue the targeted “take-out” of General Flynn for their political reasons and those of the “entirety lame duck usic.” Much of this has been revealed in the December 19, 2019, IG Report, the 86 pages of newly produced exonerating material produced by U.S. Attorney Jensen, filed in the Government’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 198), and hundreds of the texts between Strzok and Page demonstrating abject bias.”

“Amicus is lost down the rabbit hole on the other side of the looking glass— where “nothing would be what it is, because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would,” argues Powell.

Last week, Powell argued before the U.S. District Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit against Sullivan’s decision to appoint Gleeson. She noted that the government submitted an extensive and thoroughly documented motion to dismiss this prosecution based on the discovery of “extraordinary exculpatory evidence that came to light from an independent review… It can not go on any longer.”

Powell referred to Jensen, who was personally appointed by Attorney General William Barr, when evidence of FBI malfeasance surfaced in Flynn’s case. Jensen discovered through his investigation exculpatory evidence revealing that senior FBI and Justice Department officials withheld significant information from Flynn’s defense that would have played a crucial role in his case. One piece of evidence, was a January 4, FBI memo that stated that the investigation into Flynn should be dropped because no derogatory information had been found on the three star general. That memo was issued a day before a meeting with President Obama at the White House, along with other senior officials from the administration about Flynn. Shortly after, former Special Agent Peter Strzok, who led the probe against the Trump campaign, decided not to drop the investigation against Flynn. Strzok, along with FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka (which is discussed in detail further in this article), were sent to the White House on January 24, 2017 to conduct the infamous ‘perjury trap’ interview with Flynn.

In fact, Comey has previously joked that they sprung the interview on Flynn, who had no counsel present, and was set up by the FBI, despite the fact that the agents who interviewed him did not believe he was lying to them during the interview.

This court exuviated any appearance of neutrality when it unlawfully appointed Amicus as its own adversary to make these scurrilous arguments, Sidney Powell

Gleeson’s amicus against Flynn “is an affront to the Rule of Law and a raging insult to the citizens of this country who see the abject corruption in this assassination by political prosecution. This court exuviated any appearance of neutrality when it unlawfully appointed Amicus as its own adversary to make these scurrilous arguments,” Powell argued in her filing.

Last week, Gleeson submitted his lengthy amicus on behalf Sullivan, saying the Justice Departments decision to drop the charges against Flynn is a “gross abuse of prosecutorial power” and urged a court to reject its attempt to drop the criminal case in his 73-page brief.

Recently reported on Gleeson’s connections to former Special Counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who was the top prosecutor for Robert Mueller in targeting Flynn and other Trump officials.

Gleeson’s past connections to Weissmann have been a topic of scrutiny, as I previously reported.

Gleeson argued that Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during a 2017 interview and that there is no real recourse for change – in fact, he stated in his argument that the court should also factor into its sentencing Flynn his withdrawal of that guilty plea, saying to withdraw is perjury.

“It really is truly unbelievable,” said David Schoen, a civil rights and defense attorney. “I’m going to say to you that John Gleeson is one of the last people whoever should have been put in this position. If we’re concerned about the integrity of the system, John Gleeson goes back side by side colleagues for many years, with none other than Andrew Weissmann.”

In fact, Schoen said based on the relationship with Weissmann, Gleeson has a major conflict of interest and would almost likely argue on behalf of his former colleague. Schoen, who has represented the Democratic Party in the past, said there is significant evidence that has been discovered that exonerates Flynn and exposes the FBI’s malfeasance.

The timeline established in Powell’s motion is truly powerful and reveals that evidence.

Powell also argues Flynn never withheld any information from the United States government and always briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency of any travels or foreign contacts. Flynn previously served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency under President Obama.

“Moreover, in evidence still withheld are General Flynn’s briefings to the DIA on all foreign contacts,” she stated in her motion. “In addition, it is only the Government’s alleged false statements that were false. Flynn Intel Group did nothing in secret. Former CIA Director James Woolsey and former FBI executive Brian McCauley were at the only meeting that involved a “Turkish official.” General Flynn fully briefed DIA on that meeting, and on advice of counsel, Flynn Intel Group had timely filed a Lobbying Disclosure Act form. Multiple lawyers and firms deemed no FARA registration was required at all.”

But the timeline is stunning and for those who have been following the case of Flynn closely since I began reporting on it more than four years ago it exposes the actions of former FBI Director James Comey’s team in targeting Flynn and the Trump campaign.

[On December 15, 2019, the Government produced 637 pages of long- promised FD-302s and handwritten notes of the FBI Agents. These included 113 pages of 16 FD-302s; 206 pages of FBI handwritten notes.]

Below is Part of Powell’s Detailed Timeline And What Transpired:
  • August 15, 2016: Strzok and Page text about the “insurance policy” they discussed in McCabe’s office.
  • August 16, 2016: FBI opens the case against Flynn. IG Report at 2.
  • August 17, 2016: The first interview of General Flynn was conducted surreptitiously by slipping (Special) Agent (Joe) Pientka into a presidential briefing to nominee Trump and General Flynn. IG Report at 340-341. This was unprecedented and a clear policy was added to prevent its reoccurrence.
  • FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka’s stated purpose of this interview was “to provide the recipients ‘a baseline on the presence and threat posed by foreign intelligence services to the National Security of the U.S.” IG Report at xviii. In actuality, the Trump campaign was never given any defensive briefing about the alleged national security threats. IG Report at 55.
  • “the FBI viewed that briefing as a possible opportunity to collect information potentially relevant to the Crossfire Hurricane and Flynn investigations.” IG Report at 340.
  • “One of the reasons for [Pientka’s] selection was that ODNI had informed the FBI” that Flynn would be one of the three in attendance on behalf of the Trump campaign. IG Report at 341.
  • Pientka told the IG: “[T]he briefing provided him ‘the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly have some level of familiarity with [Flynn]. So, should we get to the point where we need to do a subject interview…I would have that to fall back on.’” IG Report at 341.
  • Agent Pientka said that his “assessment” meant: “[Flynn’s] ‘overall mannerisms. That overall mannerisms and then also if there was anything specific to Russia, or anything specific to our investigation, That was mentioned by him, or quite frankly we had an . . . investigation, right. And any of the other two individuals in the room, if they, any kind of admission, or overhear, whatever it was there to record that.
  • Agent Pientka was the Supervisor of Crossfire Hurricane. IG Report at 305.
  • Agent Pientka helped pick the team of investigators for General Flynn. IG Report at 65.
  • The agents interviewing General Flynn reported to Agent Pientka, and then Agent Pientka reported operational activities to Strzok. IG Report at 65.
  • Bruce Ohr provided information collected by Christopher Steele, through his contract with Fusion GPS, to the FBI “out of the blue.” IG Report at 99. Agent Pientka reviewed this information. IG Report at 100.
  • Agent Pientka was responsible for making sure the FISA applications were verified by providing a “factual accuracy review,” IG Report at 151, yet he included false and incomplete information for the court, and he failed to inform the court of significant exculpatory information.
  • Agent Pientka even “speculated” that Steele’s information was corroborated—when it was not—and he was responsible for numerous “inaccuracies,” “omissions,” and “unsupported statements” in the FISA applications. See generally IG Report at Chs. 5, 9.
  • One of the FBI lawyers falsified a document in support of one of the FISA applications. IG Report at 160.
  • Agent Pientka supervised Case Agent 1 (IG Report at 81) and withheld exculpatory information from the court that was material to determining warrants. IG Report at 232- 233.
  • Unverified information from Source 2 (Halper) was used to obtain FISA warrants to wiretap Carter Page, and thus reach General Flynn. IG Report at 313-33. Halper was closed by the FBI in 2011 but reopened by Case Agent 1. Case Agent 1 reported to Agent Pientka during Crossfire Hurricane.
  • “Agent Pientka told the OIG that he did not know about Source 2, or know that Case Agent 1 was Source 2’s handler, prior to Case Agent 1 proposing the meeting [on August 11, 2016], which Agent Pientka approved.” IG Report at 313.
  • There was “no supporting documentation” to support that “Source 2 has routinely provided reliable information that has been corroborated by the FBI.” IG Report at 418.
  • Despite the lack of information, this was relied upon in the first FISA application, and the Steele dossier which included two references to General Flynn.
  • “…during the presidential election campaign, the FBI was invited by ODNI to provide a baseline counterintelligence and security briefing (security briefing) as part of ODNI’s strategic intelligence briefing given to members of both the Trump campaign and the Clinton campaign… We also learned that, because Flynn was expected to attend the first such briefing for members of the Trump campaign on August 17, 2016, the FBI viewed that briefing as a possible opportunity to collect information potentially relevant to the Crossfire Hurricane and Flynn investigations. We found no evidence that the FBI consulted with the Department leadership or ODNI officials about this plan.” IG Report at 340.
  • Strzok was primarily responsible for preparing Agent Pientka and “providing him with instruction on how to handle the FBI’s portion of the ODNI strategic intelligence briefings, but others also assisted, including the Intel Section Chief and possibly Lisa Page.” Id. at 342. “[H]e and Strzok created the briefing outline together, and he prepared himself through mock briefings attended by Strzok, Lisa Page, the Intel Section Chief, and possibly the OGC Unit Chief.” IG Report at 340.
  • Inspector General found “members of the Crossfire Hurricane team repeatedly failed to provide OI [Office of Intelligence] with all relevant information.” IG Report at 362.

You may like

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Biden Administration Proposes Rule to Fortify Federal Bureaucracy Against Republican Presidency



Joe Biden

In a strategic move, the Biden administration has unveiled a proposed rule aimed at reinforcing the left-leaning federal bureaucracy, potentially hindering future conservative policy implementations by Republican presidents. This move has raised concerns about the efficacy of democratic elections when a deep-seated bureaucracy remains largely unchanged, regardless of electoral outcomes.

Key points of the situation include:

Presidential Appointees vs. Career Bureaucrats: Of the 2.2 million federal civil workers, only 4,000 are presidential appointees. The vast majority, made up of career bureaucrats, continue in their roles from one administration to the next. This continuity is facilitated by rules that make it exceedingly difficult to discipline or replace them, resulting in a bureaucracy that tends to lean left politically.

Union Political Affiliation: A striking 95% of unionized federal employees who donate to political candidates support Democrats, according to Open Secrets, with only 5% favoring Republicans. This significant political skew among federal workers raises questions about the potential for political bias in the execution of government policies.

Obstructionism and Challenges for GOP Presidents: Some career bureaucrats have been accused of obstructing Republican presidents’ agendas, leading to policy delays and challenges. For example, during the Trump administration, career lawyers in the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division declined to challenge Yale University’s discrimination against Asian American applicants, prompting Trump to seek legal counsel from other divisions. The case was subsequently dropped when Joe Biden took office.

Biden’s Countermeasures: President Biden has taken steps to protect the bureaucracy’s status quo. In October 2020, Trump issued an executive order aiming to reclassify federal workers who make policy as at-will employees, but Biden canceled it upon taking office.

Proposed Rule and Congressional Actions: The rule unveiled by the Biden administration seeks to further impede a president’s ability to reinstate Trump’s order. Additionally, some Democrats in Congress are pushing to eliminate the president’s authority to reclassify jobs entirely. This has been referred to as an attempt to “Trump-proof the federal workforce.”

Republican Candidates’ Pledge: GOP candidates such as President Donald J Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Ron DeSantis have pledged to address this issue. According to reports from Fox News, Ramaswamy has gone further, advocating for the elimination of half or more of civil service positions, emphasizing the need for accountability.

Debate on the Merit of the Civil Service: While Democrats and their media allies argue that civil service protects merit over patronage, critics contend that the system has evolved into a form of job security for federal workers with minimal accountability. Federal employees often receive higher salaries and more substantial benefits than their private-sector counterparts.

In summary, the Biden administration’s proposed rule and broader actions to protect the federal bureaucracy have sparked a debate over the role of career bureaucrats in shaping government policy.

Republican candidates are vowing to address these concerns, highlighting the need for accountability and ensuring that government agencies work in alignment with the elected president’s agenda. This ongoing debate raises important questions about the relationship between the bureaucracy and the democratic process in the United States.

Information in this article was retrieved from Fox News.

You may like

Continue Reading