'The Record Proves Otherwise': Judge Knocks Down Mike Flynn's 'Ambush' Claims
"The court summarily disposes of Mr. Flynn's arguments that the FBI conducted an ambush interview for the purpose of trapping him into making false statements," U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said Monday.
December 16, 2019 at 03:37 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A federal judge on Monday rejected former national security adviser Michael Flynn's broad attack against the U.S. Justice Department and FBI, setting a sentencing hearing for Jan. 28 after concluding prosecutors were not hiding evidence and that the former Trump administration aide had not been pressured to plead guilty.
In a 92-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan of the District of Columbia found there was no basis for Flynn's attacks on federal prosecutors, which included claims the Justice Department withheld favorable evidence from him. Flynn also alleged the FBI entrapped him in an interview that addressed his contacts with Russia's top diplomat to the U.S. during the presidential transition.
Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to federal investigators about his communications with Sergey Kislyak, the former Russian ambassador to the United States. His new sentencing date is the third has received since admitting to that charge.
"The court summarily disposes of Mr. Flynn's arguments that the FBI conducted an ambush interview for the purpose of trapping him into making false statements and that the government pressured him to enter a guilty plea," Sullivan wrote in Monday's ruling. "The record proves otherwise."
In December 2018, his initial sentencing hearing was derailed when Sullivan suggested he was considering sentencing Flynn to a prison term. Federal trial judges have broad discretion to order prison terms even in scenarios where prosecutors might back probation.
Flynn, represented at the time by a defense team from Covington & Burling, asked to delay the sentencing so that he could continue cooperating with federal prosecutors. But in the ensuing months, Flynn turned against prosecutors, dropping his Covington defense team to hire Sidney Powell, a vocal critic of the special counsel office investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Powell accused the Justice Department of misconduct in a push not to withdraw Flynn's guilty plea but to knock out the case entirely. She argued the government had violated obligations to disclose evidence benefiting Flynn.
In his ruling Monday, Sullivan delivered a firm repudiation of those claims.
"The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty to making materially false statements to the FBI," Sullivan said in Monday's ruling. "And it is undisputed that Mr. Flynn not only made those false statements to the FBI agents, but he also made the same false statements to the Vice President and senior White House officials, who, in turn, repeated Mr. Flynn's false statements to the American people on national television."
A second sentencing hearing had been set for Dec. 18, on the one-year anniversary of his initial sentencing date. But that hearing was canceled ahead of the release of the Justice Department inspector general's long awaited report on the roots of the Russia investigation.
The Justice Department's watchdog found that the department was justified in opening an investigation into possible coordination between Russia and associates of the Trump campaign, including Flynn. The inspector general also found there was no evidence that anti-Trump bias played into the opening of the probe.
But the report also documented significant missteps by the FBI in its pursuit of warrants to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Judge Sullivan's ruling in United States v. Flynn is posted below:
||
Read more:
'Divorced From Facts': Prosecutors Condemn Michael Flynn's 'Conspiracy Theories'
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Water Cooler Discussions': US Judge Questions DOJ Request in Google Search Case
3 minute readDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
7 minute readBig Law Communications, Media Attorneys Brace for Changes Under Trump
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250