Reconstructing Justice – Flynn Defense Submits Outstanding Sur-Surreply to Counter Prosecution….
In the case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, his lawyer Sidney Powell previously filed a motion to compel (MTC) Brady material from the prosecution (here). Because the MTC raised stunning, potentially game-changing, legal and ethical issues the prosecution requested the opportunity to file a surreptitious reply to the court; a “surreply”. (here)
Judge Sullivan directed the prosecution to file their surreply, and then granted the defense the opportunity to file a sur-surreply, a response to the prosecution’s last argument. Today Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell filed that response (full pdf below).
Having read thousands, perhaps tens-of-thousands, of legal filings, motions and court documents presenting arguments of material consequence, this sur-surreply to the arguments of the prosecution is artful in its succinct intent of getting to the nub of it.
What makes this articulate reply to the court so effective, in addition to the declared truth within it, is how it is written to both Judge Emmet Sullivan and the public. This is a motion deserving of a read by anyone who has followed the travesty of the Flynn inquisition in detail or in summary. Do not cheat yourself out of the enjoyment; read it.
The response to the prosecution argument cuts through the chaff and countermeasures and identifies the ridiculous and necessary schemes played by the prosecution, starting with their preposterous position that Flynn’s plea did not require the government to provide exculpatory, Brady, evidence. Page One:
Flynn’s defense calls out the ridiculous. The prosecution argues it had no obligation to tell the target about any material favorable to the defense while the prosecution was piling-on pressure to generate a plea agreement. Then, once the plea was coerced, the prosecution claims they have no obligation to provide Brady material because the target signed a plea.
Flynn’s defense points out the ridiculous nature of the prosecution claiming they don’t possess any FD-302 draft prior to the lengthy back-and-forth, discussion and editorial process within the FBI small group that resulted in the February 15th “official” FD-302 report.
Just because prosecutor Van Grack doesn’t have the original draft in his pocket, “if it did exist”, does not mean the government does not have access to produce the 302 draft everyone knows exists within the FBI’s electronic filing system.
[Much more of this new Sundance post. Click on link at top of email to read the rest.]
Comments are closed.
