They're all Hell-bent on continuing the Russian Collusion story until we're all going to have to hear them ramble about it in the retirement homes fifty years from now, so I'm going to hop ship and
again talk about the Flynn case, since the media has
again chosen to ignore it. While they were all running around with their hair on fire screaming about
Tetris and the Motherland, there was another advancement in the USA VS Flynn case, today. Judge Sullivan--the replacement for the forcibly-recused Contreras--
submitted a revised entry to an earlier order that requires the government to produce any evidence in its possession that is exculpatory towards Flynn.
The
original order cited prior case law that requires the government to turn over
all evidence pertaining to the case. This is a pretty standard footnote, it's nothing to be excited about. However, the
revised footnote reads
very differently, and starts citing some
particularly interesting cases, not the least of which being
Brady v. Maryland (1963), referring to the
Brady Disclosure. This new footnote also includes a
case law that states that the Supreme Court would find a
violation of due process if the prosecutors have factual evidence of a defendant’s (Flynn's) innocence, but
fail to disclose it prior to Flynn entering the plea.
In all the huff and fury going on in the news today, did you happen to catch a quick glimpse of that article the Daily Caller put out, saying that
Michael Flynn should withdraw his guilty plea? Yeah, there's a good reason that they'll hope he does that.
A really, really good reason. I'm not too certain off the top of my head who on the Farms is particularly well-versed in law, but I know of at least one person who could offer an interesting answer to an interesting question:
Hey
@AnOminous, what would you say would happen to a Judge and a prosecution that intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from a defendant both prior to allowing them to enter a guilty plea, and then motioning to prosecute them on that guilty plea whilst still withholding that evidence, particularly from a judge like Sullivan who has a
known history of holding federal prosecutors in contempt if they're knowingly failing to disclose evidence?
Would you say they're likely to soon be on the receiving end of some
particularly rigorous coitus?
