Patterico's Pontifications

9/29/2020

The Michael Flynn Hearing Is Underway

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:29 am



The call-in lines are all full, but the matter can be followed via live-tweeting from various reporters covering the case.

So far the judge has said that sentencing was technically already underway, since December 2018, and that many of the steps he has taken are standard steps, like issuing a standing Brady order or appointing an amicus, but still got a lot of attention.

Consider this an open thread. I may update it at noon.

UPDATE: The hearing is over. No decision today. I think perhaps the most remarkable thing about the hearing is that Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell admitted she recently talked to President Trump about the case. When Judge Sullivan asked her for details, she initially tried to claim executive privilege (!!). LOLOL. She ended up admitting that she had asked Trump not to pardon Flynn and claimed that was all she had talked to him about.

I hope Chris Wallace asks Trump about that. He ought to.

74 Responses to “The Michael Flynn Hearing Is Underway”

  1. One thing is certain: regardless of the outcome, he’s going to make it sound like he’s denying the motion until the very end. He is going to make the Government sweat.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. Sounds like you’re hedging Pat.

    I still think he’s going to deny the dismissal motion and sentence Flynn.

    We’ll see…

    whembly (c30c83)

  3. He might. I hope he does. He ought to.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  4. Doesn’t he also have to deal with Flynn’s Motion to Withdraw his Plea before he can sentence him?

    Josh (e2ffc8)

  5. But I still think he won’t. He’ll just make it sound like he will and then not.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  6. He’s certainly making it clear that he does not serve as a rubber stamp and that the government has to give him facts that justify the granting of the motion. He sounds like he is standing tall. I like it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  7. Here’s a new Flynn Fact: The guy had four different phones.

    Paul Montagu (39c87e)

  8. Here’s a fun whembly fact: I have two iPhones… three when I’m oncall.

    1. personal
    2. office
    3. oncall phone (rotated with my team)

    whembly (c30c83)

  9. He makes it clear he allows patent lies in his courtroom, the second time he has done so.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  10. It’s that fourth phone that makes all the difference, whembly.

    beer ‘n pretzels (0dff34)

  11. I think the judge should turn over his phones and his banking records, tax returns and what about that trip to Disneyland?

    mg (8cbc69)

  12. Remember the mannikin gleeson gave a pass to hsbc.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  13. The audio went dead when the doj was asked if he disagreed with Kramdens b.s.
    unbelievable

    mg (8cbc69)

  14. The last time judge sullivan enabled fraud a senator was deprived of his office and died subsequently.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  15. How can one possibly trust this court.
    How about the jury foredope? she was a beauty.

    mg (8cbc69)

  16. Posted this in another thread:

    Flynn’s attorneys apparently altered Peter Strzok’s notes in their filing:

    Fired FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, fresh off of a procedural win against the Department of Justice in a lawsuit over the release of his text messages with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, has through his lawyer inserted himself into the never-ending Michael Flynn case.

    In a letter on Monday to U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, Strzok lawyer Aitan Goelman took issue with exhibits that Flynn’s lawyers filed as a supplement to their stance that the criminal case against Flynn should be dismissed. Those documents, which again included Strzok’s texts, also included Strzok’s notes. According to Goelman, “some” of Strzok’s notes “appear to have been altered.”

    “On at least two occasions, there were handwritten additions, not written by Mr. Strzok, inserting dates, apparently designed to indicate the date or dates on which the notes were written,” Goelman began. “On at least one occasion, the date added is wrong and could be read to suggest that a meeting at the White House happened before it actually did.”

    Presumably they’ll be charged under the same authority as Clinesmith was.

    Dave (1bb933)

  17. They have been lying for three years why would they stop now.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  18. The almighty grasp of court room procedure seems like bull schiff.

    mg (8cbc69)

  19. Four phones? Hang ’em high! Only Russian agents use that kind of tradecraft.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  20. They purged how many phones in the special counsels office?

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  21. They purged how many phones in the special counsels office?
    Bolivar di griz (7404b5) — 9/29/2020 @ 9:30 am

    No purging. Just wiped clean. With a cloth.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  22. 15 – has nothing to do with Flynn himself or with the decision to dismiss.

    mg (8cbc69)

  23. In a letter on Monday to U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, Strzok lawyer Aitan Goelman took issue with exhibits that Flynn’s lawyers filed as a supplement to their stance that the criminal case against Flynn should be dismissed. Those documents, which again included Strzok’s texts, also included Strzok’s notes. According to Goelman, “some” of Strzok’s notes “appear to have been altered.”

    That paragraph does not match this:

    Flynn’s attorneys apparently altered Peter Strzok’s notes in their filing:

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  24. @22 it’s also rich coming from a guy who altered the 302s himself.

    whembly (c30c83)

  25. Is English not your native language?

    Dave (1bb933)

  26. The innuendo matters more than the evidence

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1310695210100367361

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  27. has nothing to do with Flynn himself or with the decision to dismiss.

    So why did Flynn’s attorneys include them in a filing with Sullivan?

    Dave (1bb933)

  28. They came from the justice department, buried for nearly four years.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  29. Flynn’s attorneys probably wrote in a date different than what Strzok told his wife.

    beer ‘n pretzels (634801)

  30. They came from the justice department, buried for nearly four years.

    Yep, that’s where they originated, before the Flynn team altered them and submitted them to the court as official documents.

    I know, you don’t care about those things like “honesty” and all, it’s not like Flynn swore under oath that he did the thing…twice.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  31. Is the Flynn hearing like a baseball game now?

    Maybe I am old school (I was accused of that here yesterday), but usually I like for a judge to come to a decision, and justify it, and then I can review both and see if I agree.

    Bored Lawyer (7b72ec)

  32. I know, you don’t care about those things like “honesty” and all

    Yeah, believing Strzok is emblematic of someone who cares about honesty. LOL

    beer ‘n pretzels (634801)

  33. Kohl: We ultimately have to prove this case w/witnesses. There is no recording of what Flynn said.

    Sullivan: Are you saying there’s no recording of what Flynn said.

    Kohl: There is a write-up of the interview.

    Pretty big news since the FBI never records interviews

    Davethulhu (62e67d)

  34. are they denying the knew danchenko was a suspected russian spy, what kind of railroad are they running over there at justice,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  35. what kind of railroad are they running over there at justice

    I dunno, but they should hang the #@$!@$!% in charge.

    Dave (1bb933)

  36. Kohl: We ultimately have to prove this case w/witnesses.

    Flynn, who was a witness, testified under oath (twice) that he’s guilty as charged.

    It seems like that should suffice.

    Dave (1bb933)

  37. @35

    Kohl: We ultimately have to prove this case w/witnesses.

    Flynn, who was a witness, testified under oath (twice) that he’s guilty as charged.

    It seems like that should suffice.

    Dave (1bb933) — 9/29/2020 @ 11:42 am

    No. Federal prosecutors are obligated to drop the case if they don’t believe they can prove it in court.

    whembly (c30c83)

  38. when the prosecution has committed multiple fraud, yes they need to be cross examined, perhaps in a disbarment hearing,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  39. Federal prosecutors are obligated to drop the case if they don’t believe they can prove it in court.

    This is the sentencing phase. Flynn’s guilt has been established.

    Dave (1bb933)

  40. @38

    Federal prosecutors are obligated to drop the case if they don’t believe they can prove it in court.

    This is the sentencing phase. Flynn’s guilt has been established.

    Dave (1bb933) — 9/29/2020 @ 12:14 pm

    It’s not unheard of that the government dropping a case during sentencing phase.

    whembly (c30c83)

  41. It’s not unheard of that the government dropping a case during sentencing phase.

    Seems like that’s the argument. All evidence says that it is pretty much unheard of, that’s why the argument from the judges is that they’ve not heard of it.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0)

  42. So… the DNI declassed some intelligence that’s catching fire on twittah.

    It describes that US Intel agencies had info that Hillary Clinton, in the summer of 2016, had authorized a PLAN as part of the campaign to link Trump to Russian activity re DNC hack, and this info was forwarded to Comey and Strzok…that Brennan debriefed the Obama Whitehouse.

    o.O

    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/09-29-20_Letter%20to%20Sen.%20Graham_Declassification%20of%20FBI's%20Crossfire%20Hurricane%20Investigations_20-00912_U_SIGNED-FINAL.pdf

    Chairman Graham,
    SEP 2 9 2020
    In response to your request for Intelligence Community (IC) information related to the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, I have declassified the
    following:

    • In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence
    analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a
    campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump
    by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National
    Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to
    which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.

    • According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director
    Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security
    officials on the intelligence, including the “alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on
    July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald
    Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.”

    • On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral
    to FBI Director James Corney and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence
    Peter Strzok regarding “U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a
    plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers
    hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.”

    As referenced in his 24 September 2020 letter to your Committee, Attorney General Barr
    has advised that the disclosure of this information will not interfere with ongoing Department of
    Justice investigations. Additional declassification and public disclosure of related intelligence
    remains under consideration; however, the IC welcomes the opportunity to provide a classified
    briefing with further detail at your convenience.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    whembly (c30c83)

  43. UPDATE: The hearing is over. No decision today. I think perhaps the most remarkable thing about the hearing is that Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell admitted she recently talked to President Trump about the case. When Judge Sullivan asked her for details, she initially tried to claim executive privilege (!!). LOLOL. She ended up admitting that she had asked Trump not to pardon Flynn and claimed that was all she had talked to him about.

    I hope Chris Wallace asks Trump about that. He ought to.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  44. Flynn’s lawyer met with Trump regarding her client’s status, we’re learning in testimony today.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  45. Rock and Roll with Amy Coney Barrett and the Supremes

    mg (8cbc69)

  46. so what

    — Kohl, DOJ counsel, took Judge Sullivan through facts that undermined materiality essential to have a case against Flynn at all—facts that have come out since Sullivan ruled. He noted that the FBI itself did not think the interview was related to the investigation. He asked, how then can it be material?

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  47. Flynn’s lawyer met with Trump regarding her client’s status, we’re learning in testimony today.

    I’ll bet it was on a tarmac in Phoenix, which makes it totally legit.

    beer ‘n pretzels (21c0fe)

  48. cheers, beer and pretzels

    mg (8cbc69)

  49. Well… I was wrong. I thought he’d rule today.

    whembly (c30c83)

  50. In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence
    analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a
    campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump
    by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National
    Committee. The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to
    which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.

    LOL. But the media and VSP all said that Trump was colluding with the Russkies! They had pee tapes and Cohen in Prague to prove it!

    Biggest presidential con job of all time – of course a Clinton had to be behind it.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  51. I think perhaps the most remarkable thing about the hearing is that Flynn’s lawyer Sidney Powell admitted she recently talked to President Trump about the case.

    I’m reassured that the country’s chief law enforcement officer is overseeing this case without passion, prejudice or personal interest, to assure a just outcome and preserve the legitimacy of our justice system. /sarc

    Words like “disgraceful” and “shameless” have been denuded of their ability to evoke a reaction. I’m just left wondering how people who continue to justify Trump’s assault on everything principled and decent will explain themselves to their grandchildren.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  52. Biggest presidential con job of all time – of course a Clinton Russian had to be behind it.

    Fixed.

    This would scandalous, except we know the Russians *did* intervene on Trump’s behalf, that they *did* hack the DNC, that Trump’s campaign *did* seek out their assistance, and that one of Trump’s henchmen *was* trying to coordinate the release of hacked material damaging to Clinton.

    So the fact that the Russians would try to cover their trail by blowing smoke shouldn’t surprise anybody.

    You may have also missed this part:

    The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.

    Dave (1bb933)

  53. I’m just left wondering how people who continue to justify Trump’s assault on everything principled and decent will explain themselves to their grandchildren.

    Just do what Trump would do: lie.

    Dave (1bb933)

  54. Dave, I think it is safe to say at this point that the Russians played both sides for fools. However, this does not change the fact that Clinton staged this smear campaign, Obama’s administration was complicit, and the FBI didn’t care.

    I wonder what the FISA court would have said if the FBI had told them about this recently declassified intel? Probably wouldn’t have given their approval. Shame the FBI can’t be trusted.

    Hoi Polloi (dc4124)

  55. I’m reassured that the country’s chief law enforcement officer is overseeing this case without passion, prejudice or personal interest, to assure a just outcome and preserve the legitimacy of our justice system. /sarc

    All that’s missing is the email to self about doing things “by the book”.

    beer ‘n pretzels (21c0fe)

  56. Sullivan was pretending that there were a lot of things he didn’t know. He is leaving him self an out.

    Brion Mitchell (ba5913)

  57. Just think how many more corrupt judges rule the roost.

    mg (8cbc69)

  58. However, this does not change the fact that Clinton staged this smear campaign, Obama’s administration was complicit, and the FBI didn’t care.

    You still seem to have overlooked this:

    The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to
    which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.

    The only “fact” here is that the Russians tried to conceal their active measures campaign on Trump’s behalf by calling it a Clinton hoax.

    Dave (1bb933)

  59. Dave – don’t bogart that joint-

    mg (8cbc69)

  60. Sounds like Gleeson was on a tear. A little over the top for my taste, but he sounded really pissed off.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  61. This release of “information” from Ratcliffe to Graham stinks to high heaven. The SIC already looked at it and tossed it for lack of credible evidence.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  62. as opposed to danchenko, steele seems to have enabled as severe an infiltration as kim philby, he was born in aden, where a part of my novella is set, the protagonist is tied to the land through four generations,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  63. I like that E.P. claim. Hey, I wonder, if my attorney suggests I do something illegal, does attorney-client privilege mean I can’t report him to the bar?

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  64. Whoa there. Tell me that’s not true.

    When a private citizen speaks to the President of the United States, the contents of that conversation are not subject to executive privilege.

    Paul Montagu (77c694)

  65. They came from the justice department, buried for nearly four years.

    Yep, that’s where they originated, before the Flynn team altered them and submitted them to the court as official documents.

    I know, you don’t care about those things like “honesty” and all, it’s not like Flynn swore under oath that he did the thing…twice.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (1367c0) — 9/29/2020 @ 10:03 am

    Do you have proof that the “Flynn team altered them” or is that libel? How do you know that they weren’t changed before being released to Flynn’s lawyers?

    I remember a saying that applies to the veracity of Peter Strzok.

    If a man’s wife can’t trust him how can I?

    If a man is not trustworthy to the closest relationship he has, how can I a mere acquaintance or coworker know that he’s being honest with me?

    Please provide proof of your allegation.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  66. If a man’s wife can’t trust him how can I?

    I take it you won’t be voting for Trump, Tanny?

    nk (1d9030)

  67. president donalds relationship with his wife is based on something much more important than trust mr nk

    Dave (1bb933)

  68. If a man’s wife can’t trust him how can I?

    I take it you won’t be voting for Trump, Tanny?

    nk (1d9030) — 9/30/2020 @ 6:25 am

    Actually I will be voting for President Trump. As a Christian I know that we all have a past. I certainly have a past I’m not proud of. The Bible states that “for all have sinned and fall short the glory of God” and to non-Christians and Christians alike “he who says he is without sin is a liar and does not know God”. Franklin Graham has said that President Trump is a Christian which means his past is forgiven though not all consequences of his past. I noticed that his infidelities seem to have happened long ago though he still has a lot of flaws. I’ve been a Christian for almost 46 years and I’m far from perfect with more flaws than I care to say. I’m not voting for President Trump because he’s a Christian, I did that with Jimmy Carter and that didn’t work out well.

    In 2016 I held my nose and voted for Trump for three reasons.

    1. When he was debating Hillary she said she supported 3rd trimester abortion and because he has no filter Trump blurted out, “that’s murder”. I agree.

    2. His stand on illegal immigration.

    3. He was not Hillary who besides abortion up till birth has stated that the 1st amendment only supports our religious freedom of worship in a church building and not free exercise without location restrictions as it is plainly written. Might as well add corruption and close relationship to communist Saul Alinsky who wanted to destroy the United States government and replace it with communism. There are too many other reasons to enumerate in this space.

    I’m voting for President Trump in 2020 because he’s not Joe Biden and reasons outlined in a Letter to an Anti-Trump Christian Friend. In my opinion President Trump isn’t the best choice, but like with Hillary he’s millions of miles better than Joe Biden.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  69. Actually I will be voting for President Trump. As a Christian I know that we all have a past.

    Tanny, Trump has never repented, asked forgiveness, or even tried, after bragging he can touch a woman wherever and whenever he wants, using prostitutes when his wife is recovering from childbirth, even forcibly raping Ivana, and arguably sexualizing Ivanka. Just last night the guy sneered that he didn’t know who Beau Biden was, started blasting a man’s son for no reason.

    Trump lies to us about everything. His taxes are a great example of how this is simply how the man always lives selfishly, finding the way to take the most, give the least, and even lie to us that he paid more than the rest of us.

    You dismiss this present behavior because ‘we all have a past,’ but when you talked about a Trump critic, you had the opposite attitude over a single sin.

    It is pretty common for Trump fans to say Trump’s awful behavior should be forgiven no matter how extreme, no matter if he shoots someone on 5th avenue, while applying the most thin skinned standard to anyone on the other side.

    That you do this in the name of Jesus is something I urge you to reconsider, because that is the worst part.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  70. we know what obama did to the sisters of the poor to hobby lobby, we now how churches have been shuttered, and abortion mills and head shops are allowed to stay open, now gorsuch and kavanaugh have been dissapointing, but they were the ones that could get through the possum senate,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  71. we know sullivan is a corrupt judge, I don’t need a third instance to prove enemy action, but If I did they way he treats hillary’s malfeasance with forebearance would be such an example,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  72. You dismiss this present behavior because ‘we all have a past,’ but when you talked about a Trump critic, you had the opposite attitude over a single sin.

    It is pretty common for Trump fans to say Trump’s awful behavior should be forgiven no matter how extreme, no matter if he shoots someone on 5th avenue, while applying the most thin skinned standard to anyone on the other side.

    That you do this in the name of Jesus is something I urge you to reconsider, because that is the worst part.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 9/30/2020 @ 11:20 am

    Dustin,

    I didn’t know that you’d become a mind reader over the past few years when I took a break from commenting. No, I do not forgive Trump for everything and Strzok has not become a Christian as far as I know. He’s still a corrupt liar who subverted justice. Also please reread my comment where I wrote about consequences.

    I’m not voting in the name of Jesus, I’m voting on my own. I don’t believe that President Trump is the Jesus candidate and as I pointed out when I voted for Jimmy Carter because he was a Christian it didn’t work out well.

    Did you read the Letter to an Anti-Trump Christian Friend?

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  73. Rant.

    I happened to disagree with Patrick on the guilt of general Flynn. The problem is that most people believe if you are illegally prosecuted for a crime you did not commit you can just go to court and declare your you’re not guilty and will be all over, just like that. Well it isn’t cheap. Mark Steyn says the process is the punishment and I agree with him. Even if you win, you lose when the government is involved. If I remember correctly what he was accused of lying about wasn’t even in the transcript and he didn’t remember it and basically said well if you say so. But it wasn’t until millions of dollars in legal fees were spent and the loss of his house when Brandon Van Grack threatened to go after his son if he didn’t plead guilty that he pled guilty.

    Incidentally they went after his partner for the same reason they were going to go after general Flynn’s son and his partner was found not guilty. These people are evil.

    There was a case where a man was pulled over and they believed the container labeled powdered milk were drugs and arrested him on drug charges. It was taking a long time to analyze the substance and the county jail was a very dangerous place to be so he pled guilty so that he could go to the prison which was much safer. Three months later they found out the powdered milk was indeed powdered milk and he was let go. He pled guilty! He must’ve been guilty or he wouldn’t of pled guilty. Was he guilty? No.

    When the DOJ abuses a citizen.

    FEAR & LOATHING AT THE DOJ

    In the memoir Cardiac Arrest: Five Heart-Stopping Years as a CEO on the Feds’ Hit List (written with Stephen Saltarelli), Howard Root tells the story of his experience as chief executive officer of Vascular Solutions caught in the crosshairs of the federal government when prosecutors sought to put his company out of business and to send him to the big house. Howard touched on one aspect of his story in the Wall Street Journal column “Sally Yates’s legacy of injustice at the Department of Justice.

    This was not justice and one of many reasons prosecutors need to be reigned in vigorously. I would bet that not one of the attorneys involved in this illegal process will lose their license to practice law. It’s a rigged system.

    A young man in a pick up truck pulled out from the curb and hit my car as I was passing by. He was guilty. His insurance company agreed that he was guilty. However they didn’t want to pay me for the value of my car nor money to rent a car while looking for a new car. Unfortunately I had dropped comprehensive insurance and only had liability insurance because I was struggling with finances at the time. I could not get a lawyer to take my case because it wasn’t enough money. I ended up going to small claims court where I won, but I lost a lot of money. The judge and it was a judge because I don’t go see commissioners and especially judge pro temps asked me why I didn’t take it to court and get more money. I told her I couldn’t get a lawyer to take the case. The judicial system is not fair.

    BTW. When you refuse to be heard by commissioner or judge pro temp in small claims court they make you wait until the end of the day to punish you for that decision. I was there early and had to wait until 4 PM for a judge to hear my case. Like I said, the judicial system is not fair.

    End rant.

    Tanny O'Haley (8a06bc)

  74. Flynn’s motion for Judge Sullivan to recuse:
    https://www.scribd.com/document/479101479/US-v-Flynn-motion-to-disqualify-Judge-Sullivan

    I think this is simply to satisfy future questions on appeal if necessary.

    But, there’s some absolute FIRE in this motion…

    whembly (c30c83)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3829 secs.