This story is developing.
Stunning documents withheld for years from former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s defense reveal that the retired three-star general did not commit any crimes, as suggested by Department of Justice prosecutors in former Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, his attorney said.
The new evidence was turned over to Sidney Powell, Flynn’s defense lawyer, by U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea, who obtained the information after an extensive review by attorneys appointed by U.S. Attorney General William Barr to review Flynn’s case. Barr’s team included United States attorney in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, who is handling the Flynn matter, along with prosecutors from the office of the deputy attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen.
The documented evidence was sent to Powell by Shea but is under court seal.
“The enclosed documents were obtained and analyzed by USA EDMO in March and April 2020 and are provided to you as a result of this ongoing review; additional documents may be forthcoming. These materials are covered by the Protective Order entered by the Court on February 21, 2018,” Shea’s letter to Powell states.
Powell, who could not discuss the exact contents of the Brady material she has now obtained but has been fighting for since taking Flynn’s case, told SaraACarter.com the material exonerates her client.
“What else has the FBI buried,” said Powell to this reporter Friday. “Where’s the original 302? And obviously some of the good agents are finally stepping up.”
In the supplement to Flynn’s motion to dismiss his case for egregious government misconduct Powell stated Friday that “this afternoon, the government produced to Mr. Flynn stunning Brady evidence that proves Mr. Flynn’s allegations of having been deliberately set up and framed by corrupt agents at the top of the FBI.”
“It also defeats any argument that the interview of Mr. Flynn on January 24 was material to any ‘investigation.’ The government has deliberately suppressed this evidence from the inception of this prosecution—knowing there was no crime by Mr. Flynn,” she added.
According to the documents produced by the government Powell “has found further evidence of misconduct by Mr. Van Grack specifically,” referring to the DOJ prosecutor in Flynn’s case, Brandon Van Grack.
“Not only did he make baseless threats to indict Michael G. Flynn, he made a side deal not to prosecute Michael G. Flynn as a material term of the plea agreement, but he required that it be kept secret between himself and the Covington attorneys expressly to avoid the requirement of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). Exs. 1, 2,” she states in the motion.
“Since August 2016 at the latest, partisan FBI and DOJ leaders conspired to destroy Mr. Flynn,” Powell argued to the court in the motion. “These documents show in their own handwriting and emails that they intended either to create an offense they could prosecute or at least get him fired. Then came the incredible malfeasance of Mr. Van Grack’s and the SCO’s prosecution despite their knowledge there was no crime by Mr. Flynn.”
“All this new evidence, and the government has advised there is more to come, proves that the crimes were committed by the FBI officials and then the prosecutors,” Powell’s motion to dismiss Flynn’s case states. “The government’s misconduct in this case is beyond shocking and reprehensible. It mandates dismissal.”
“Furthermore, this Court should order the government immediately to provide the defense with unredacted copies of the documents we have filed under seal solely in an abundance of caution because the government produced them under the protective order, and we request that they be unsealed as provided herein as Exhibit 3,” the motion states.
Powell, who has had a long battle to obtain the evidence and is still fighting to obtain information from FBI Director Christopher Wray, who replaced fired FBI Director James Comey said, “this Court must dismiss this concocted prosecution of General Flynn in full recognition of the travesty of justice that it is.”
Jennie S. Taer contributed to this report.
BREAKING: Trump ordered to pay over $350M, barred from operating his business in NY in civil fraud case ruling
Former President Donald Trump and his business empire faced a significant setback as a New York judge ruled against them in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The 92-page ruling, handed down by Judge Arthur Engoron, barred Trump from operating his business in New York for three years and imposed over $350 million in damages.
The case, which unfolded over months of trial proceedings, stemmed from allegations that Trump inflated his assets and engaged in fraudulent practices. Engoron’s ruling cited a litany of charges, including persistent fraud, falsifying records, issuing false financial statements, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Moreover, the judge imposed restrictions on key figures within the Trump Organization, including Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, barring them from serving in certain corporate roles in New York for a specified period.
Engoron’s scathing assessment of Trump’s testimony during the trial further undermined the former president’s credibility. The judge criticized Trump for evasive responses and irrelevant digressions, highlighting the detrimental effect on his credibility.
In response to the ruling, Trump’s attorney, Christopher Kise, lambasted the court’s decision, alleging political bias and a disregard for established legal principles. Kise argued that the evidence presented during the trial failed to support the allegations of fraud and emphasized Trump’s substantial net worth.
Kise’s assertions were echoed by Alina Habba, another attorney representing Trump, who denounced the verdict as a “manifest injustice” resulting from a politically motivated witch hunt.
Throughout the proceedings, Trump consistently dismissed the trial as politically motivated, accusing both Engoron and James of partisan bias. His legal team also criticized the absence of a jury in the trial, questioning the fairness of the proceedings.
Attorney General Letitia James, who spearheaded the lawsuit against Trump and his organization, portrayed the ruling as a victory for accountability and transparency in business practices. The lawsuit alleged fraudulent conduct and sought substantial financial penalties, a portion of which would contribute to the state treasury.
The fallout from the case extends beyond Trump and his business interests, with implications for the broader business community and the rule of law. The contentious nature of the trial and its outcome underscored deep divisions and raised questions about the integrity of the legal system.
Trump vows to appeal the decision.
Israel6 days ago
Iran-backed Houthis recruiting ‘thousands’ of children after Oct 7 massacre
Immigration5 days ago
Feds bust ‘sophisticated’ trucking operation smuggling drugs in fire extinguishers after two year operation
Nation7 days ago
BREAKING: At least one dead, multiple injured after Chiefs Super Bowl victory rally
China6 days ago
Border Patrol Council President concerned over ‘influx’ of military-aged Chinese men crossing the southern border