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 AllLitigators of the Week: Jeffrey Kessler and Steve Berman Reach a Settlement With the NCAA that Reshapes College Sports
A Reporter and a Mayor: Behind the Scenes During the Eric Adams Indictment News Cycle
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Joseph G. Petrosinelli, C. Bryan Wilson and Angela Pyo of Williams & Connolly have entered appearances for Motive Technologies in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in California Northern District Court by Shaw Keller LLP and Kirkland & Ellis on behalf of Samsara Inc., assets three patents related to dashcam video footage technology. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge James Donato, is 4:24-cv-06049, Samsara Inc. v. Motive Technologies Inc.
Who Got The Work
Moez M. Kaba, Christina Von der Ahe Rayburn, Dennis Ojogho and Yegor Fursevich from Hueston Hennigan have entered appearances for Amazon.com in a pending trade secrets lawsuit. The complaint was filed Aug. 26 in New York Southern District Court by Merchant & Gould on behalf of Select Research Ltd., a 3-D body imaging developer involved in the use of human health calculator body volume index (BVI). The suit contends that Amazon improperly embodied and incorporated SRL's trade secrets in their 'Halo' and 'Made For You' products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman, is 7:24-cv-06419, Select Research Ltd. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Irell & Manella have stepped in to defend Foresight Diagnostics in a pending trade secrets lawsuit. The action, which is sealed, was filed Aug. 29 in California Northern District Court by Richards, Layton & Finger and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Eumi K. Lee, is 5:24-cv-06117, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. et al v. Foresight Diagnostics Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
David A. Robinson, John F. Wood and Brendan H. Connors from Holland & Knight and attorneys from Proskauer Rose have entered appearances for Scientific Drilling International, S. Westley Shedd, Pamela Pierce and other defendants, respectively, in a pending shareholder lawsuit. The suit was filed Aug. 29 in California Central District Court by Umhofer, Mitchell & King on behalf of Matthew D. Van Steenwyk and Gretchen M. Van Steenwyk-Marsh. The suit accuses the controlling shareholder of Scientific Drilling of self-dealing. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha, is 2:24-cv-07401, Matthew D. Van Steenwyk et al v. Kedrin E. Van Steenwyk et al.
Who Got The Work
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete partners Laura A. Balson and Ashley L. Orler have entered appearances for Avfuel Corporation in a pending data breach class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, centers on a 2024 cyberattack that allegedly exposed the personally identifying and private data of 'potentially billions of individuals.' The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith, is 2:24-cv-12274, Clark III v. Avfuel Corporation.
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