1/5

Hard to follow when listening. Much easier reading. Sydney Powell argues today DISMISS CASE NOW!

Judge:Why did Mr. Flynn plead guilty twice under oath?

S. Powell:Well first of all your honor, he had counsel that was hopelessly conflicted. They had a non-consentable conflict of interest, and could engage in effective assistance of counsel under that conflict. He was not advised of all the evidence accurately. Even the government, what they disclosed, before the plea. And the first plea was invalid as a matter of law, before judge Contrearas, he should have been recused. Then the government knew it withheld text messages, evidencing his relationship with Peter Strozk, the lead FBI agent on the case. It required his recusal within a few days later. And once a judge is recused under the DC circuit’s decisions and under Al Nasheri anything he did thereafter can be given any credit, or in use. So everything Judge Contrearas did under Al Nasheri has to be stricken and/or is void. So there was never a valid guilty plea in the first place. When this court proceeded on the sentencing on, or to schedule a sentencing hearing on December 12. Which reminds me, there had never been a sentencing. It did not commence. Instead, the court shifted to do a plea policy, and extended plea policy which Gen Flynn was not informed before the proceeding and his counsel would like to show we only coached him as to if the court offered him an opportunity to withdraw his plea, to say no to that would only be giving him rope to hang himself. He had not had the opportunity to consult with independent counsel, it was some months later until when this happened. As soon as he did….

Judge:Let me just stop you there, during the course of that hearing before me, I bent over backwards, as I always do to be fair to everyone who comes before me. And when the question came up about his attorneys back peddling from acceptance of responsibility or what appeared to be back peddling, um that to provoke the discussion I know unfortunately we have to go thru with this, if you want another attorney to discuss this I will appoint another attorney at no expense to you. And I also had, knowing I would ask those questions, I also had a conference room knowing he was going to speak with his then current attorney, about that, and I took a recess. So there was an attempt by the court to appoint outstanding lawyers to him without going forward. And I think his response to that was after talking with his attorneys and after thinking about it was he appreciated it but he denied the opportunity to have independent counsel. So it was not as if he was not afforded an opportunity not to speak with someone else….so anyway go ahead.

S. Powell:Well there was no independent counsel there for him at that time. And he was completely blindsided by the entire proceeding, as were his own counsel, who had told him to only say no if the court had offered him any opportunity to withdraw his plea. They were still laboring under a non-consentable conflict of interest. , because they themselves had done the Fara filings, and

>>10842779

2/5

documents we have filed form their own stock shows that they knew there were problems with the Fara filing that were created by the government itself and their allegations, and by their own files. That the statements came from Eric Boxburn and from the accounting records. Not attributable to Mr. Flynn at all. But they had the issue of being conflicted by their underlying work on the Fara filing. It was a choice of either we admit that we screwed up here or point out that this is wrong or Flynn goes ahead with the plea. And they pushed him thru with the plea. There is no dispute about that. It really cannot be contested. That plea, that was not a valid rule 11 preceding either, because this court did not do a full rule 11 “collically” it did not ask about coercion, it didn’t illicit anything that would have shown that the government knew about a conflict of interest and it discussed with defense counsel so the court was not informed about the conflict, And the court was not informed about the coercion that occurred that General Flynn, Gotrest used to indict his son the following day giving them the Manafort treatment that was so notorious at the time. And the fact that the government was hiding that from the court at that time because Mr. Bainback want to avoid and Giglio obligation in the future. I mean this court, 6 years ago, when Stevens case came about was outraged over government misconduct and hiding Brady. The government here did not even give us the right names of the agents for 18 months. Yet the court voiced no concern over that, but the court is concerned over a couple of dates on Strozks text messages…..I mean handwritten notes. There are Brady violations all over this case and rampant evidence of government misconduct in the words of their own agents. Who talk about, “Part of this is an ax to grind” by people in the white house, the day of or before that president Obama and biden met with sally yates and james comey when comey told them the phone calls were legitimate and General Flynn had made with ambassador Klizniack because they had the transcript of the call of them, and knew there was no problem whatsoever, but Prez Obama, in a politically corrupt investigation and prosecution, sends comey out to make sure he puts the right people on it to continue the investigation, despite the fact that every lead shows that General Flynn was an extraordinary person, there was no derogatory information on him whatsoever, from any source, they had investigated him for 6 month by then, put out national security letters on him and everything else and by the way, that investigation didn’t ramp up until after the election despite the fact the insurance text they discussed became obfus August 15th lead to the opening of the file against General Flynn the very next day, and then agent Pient and the other agent that interviewed him, and they trusted daily presidential briefings to spy on General Flynn and President Elect Trump, or nominee Trump at the time, to collect information on him and to assess his mannerisms, in the event they needed to interview him later, i.e. be rated into the white house and that information was not disclosed to us until the inspector general’s report was made public December 2018, after this court had already issued its ruling, on denying the Brady evidence. So Extraordinary Brady evidence has come to light since this courts original Brady order, which shows ……. Government Misconduct.

Judge:Let me stop you for a second, I want you to be very precise, since the court’s ruling, what is the exact Brady evidence that has been produced since the court’s ruling?

S. Powell:Well there is a report of the IG, that shows that Mr. Pienka was sent into a presidential daily briefing by President nominee Trump and General Flynn to collect information on Flynn from that

>>10842787

3/5

briefing that Christopher Wray had found so egregious that the FBI has completely stopped that policy and that the office of national intelligence has that they are not going to allow the FBI to participate in any more briefing like that, it was such an egregious abuse of trust. We didn’t know that we have more evidence Agent Pienka and Agent Strozk knew that General Flynn was telling the truth when he talked with them, that he was forthcoming, that he told them about a meeting with the Russians that they did not even know he had. We know that agent Barnett said he got exculpatory evidence in regard to General Flynn. There was no derogatory information at all. We had the new national security letters list, that shows how many NSLs were sent out on General Flynn, even though he was now in the White House. None of which produced any derogatory information. They ran every type of trap, wire, leak anything you want to talk about and they got no derogatory information on General Flynn. Yet because of the meeting with bho, bden, sally yates. Comey in the WH on Jan 5th, comey went back out, despite seeing the calls were legitimate, and instituted a politically corrupt procedure as evidenced by the agents own words and notes now, they all knew it. To get General Flynn, and thereby get President Trump. And the mantles that Mr. Gleason and this court has picked up since then, is the mantle to continue a political prosecution of General Flynn that has no justification whatsoever, in fact, in law, it is a hideous abuse of power, that continues to this very minute. And only in other countries can any of say they have seen this ever happen.

Judge:Have you or any of your attorneys filed on behalf of Mr. Flynn. First let me say I was unaware of any reasons why judge Contrearas recused. I never had a discussion on why he recused, and never wanted to discuss with him why he recused. Has anyone filed a motion to vacate the plea of guilty for him for the reasons you articulated today?

S. Powell:It is one of the reasons we filed a motion to withdraw the plea. We argued repeatedly it was a void proceeding. And Contrearas had to be recused because the Strozt/Page text messages talk about meeting him at a cocktail party and discussing the case and him being on the FISA court and all of that. We provided those to the court as part of our request to withdraw the guilty plea. I believe we briefed this, in our amicus, I mean our mandamus petition. As one of the reasons the guilty plea is void. Both guilty pleas, nether one of them is valid. The first because Judge contrearas had to have been recused. The second, because this court did not do a Full Plea collically, and Gen Flynn was still not represented by counsel who had been dedicated to his interest……under the 6th amendment.

Judge:When he was informed he was under oath and he swore under oath he was guilty because he was guilty and he asked for forgiveness. In what situations are you argue the court review a rule48A motion, if at all?

S. Powell:A consented say Rule48A motion your honor the court the court is required to GRANT. The government has given more than substantial reasons to withdraw it. Nixon said this was their sole

>>10842798

4/5

discretion to decide who, what and when to prosecute. This court for example, in its own decision in Pitt recognizes dismissal has to be with prejudice, otherwise there is a potential for harassment against the defendant. And the fact that this court and Mr. Gleason would even wait for a new Attn. General or a new administration simply highlights the political nature of this continued prosecution.

Judge:I am not going to get into any discussion about if there are on that opinion but it speaks for itself. The facts were significantly different than the facts of this case other than they cried out for a dismissal with prejudice and the government chose not to appeal.

S. Powell:To fail to dismiss this case with prejudice would trigger the same concerns of Rinaldi and Pitt. That the defendant be subjected to continued harassment, except this time, it would be by the court and Mr. Gleason, his special prosecutor, As opposed to the Government. Which it absolutely, clearly and unequivocally said it will not drop prosecution and not waste further resources on it.

Judge:Well I have not appointed Mr. Gleason as special prosecutor and don’t intend to appoint anyone else to special prosecutor. Or appoint an amicus. Again, if you want to argue that there is no basis you can file something within a week or so. You argue also that the court may not look, and I quote, “into the motives, into the reasoning of the executive.” How then is the court to determine any motives, what is the extent that which the court can look at?

S. Powell:It can look at the face of the pleading by government. It can look at the 80 pages documents,I believe we are up to 150 pages of documents of new evidence now that the investigation was part of the corruption, part of the essential coup, to take out President Trump. And the goal was to get Flynn first and then get Trump.That is evident for Mr. Barnett’s 302 as well as the text messages and link messages of many of the agents.

Judge:Alright, is there anything else you want to put on the record? I don’t have any other questions to ask. Any other points you wish to make?

S. Powell:We have provided the new information to the court as it was given to us by the government. This courts own decision on Pitt requires it to be dismissed with prejudice. In closing, I would just say(channels inner roddy piper)“that Mr. Gleason continues to be lost down the rabbit hole on the other side of the looking glass where nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t. And contrary wise, what is, it wouldn’t be. And what it wouldn’t be, it would. It’s all backwards, it’s upside down.” In a different scenario, he himself wrote, “the prosecutor can do Justice by the simple act of going back to the court and agreeing that justice should be done. The importance

>>10842805

5/5

of the department of justice being able to self-correct can maintain its own reputation and to restore faith in the public in the DOJ itself is hugely important.” As Mr. Gleason wrote then, “doing justice can be much harder, it takes time, it involves work, in careful consideration of circumstances of particular crimes, defendants, victims and also the relevant events that occurred in the distant past. It requires a willingness to make hard decisions, including some that will be criticized.” That is exactly what AG Barr has done here. The Presidents tweets are a red herring. As is the letter from Peter Strozk’s lawyers. All of which are extrajudicial and should not be considered by this court at all. In the Clauge case which Mr. Gleason discussed, he said his assistant US Attorney had to retrieve and examine an old case file, he requested an adjournment so his office could do this extremely important work of reviewing it. The effort that went into deciding whether to agree to vacate two counts against the defendant, could have been devoted to other cases. This is a significant case and not just for the defendant. It demonstrates the difference between a department of prosecution and a department of justice. It shows how the department of justice, as the government’s representative, in every settled case, has the power to walk into courtrooms, and ask judges to remedy injustices. This is the most egregious injustice I have ever seen in my 30+ years of practice. And the government has the character it should remember it, rectify it, and that this court dismiss this case with prejudice is the answer.

Judge:All right, thank you

I ain’t writing Cole’s out!!!

>>10842779

>>10842779

forgot the reference!!!

Powell starts at 4:29:45 of this video

>>10843333

4 trees chek'd.