Read on Twitter
I am reading @SidneyPowell1 response to the gov surreply and I am jumping up and down in my office. Will thread ASAP here
This is one footnote and I feel it needs to be shared here before I get into the rest. From the text: "It is disingenuous to suggest that the proffer sessions were not adversarial when the government had permission to target Mr. Flynn, seized all his electronic devices,..."
"...targeted his son, and seized his son’s devices. The government fails to mention that, to obtain the plea, it threatened Mr. Flynn with indictment the next day, the indictment of his son who had a new baby, promised him "the Manafort treatment,” and promised to ..."
"...pile on charges sufficient to put him in prison the rest of his life. The short fuse was no doubt motivated by the government’s knowledge, which it did not disclose to Flynn, that the salacious Strzok-Page emails, disclosing their vitriolic hatred of President Trump..."
"...and his team, the key agents’ affair, and their termination from Mueller’s Special Counsel operation were going to be exposed the very next day. No individual, no matter how innocent, can withstand such pressure, particularly when represented by..."
"...conflicted defense counsel. The advice a client is given by his lawyer in such fraught circumstances can make all the difference between standing his ground or caving to the immense pressure. Mr. Flynn caved, not because he is guilty, but because of the government’s..."
"...failure to put its cards on the table, as Brady,
requires, and its failure to ensure that Mr. Flynn was represented by un-conflicted counsel when
he was forced to make that decision."
requires, and its failure to ensure that Mr. Flynn was represented by un-conflicted counsel when
he was forced to make that decision."
On Covington (I am working backwards here- bear with me) @SidneyPowell1 properly states that in cases where there is such a conflict (Covington had been party to the FARA filings before charges or plea etc) the government acted wholly inadequately (cont)
General Flynn's former attorneys were ethically bound to WITHDRAW from the case- they couldn't provide counsel under these circumstances, and their representation became unconstitutional. Just because the Gov was aware and Flynn ALLEGEDLY agreed, didn't matter.
They weren't permitted to remain. I say allegedly, because it appears that the argument is being made that his former counsel misrepresented that General Flynn was aware.
