Not a law type, just a researcher but…
I find it hard to believe that anyone could charge or accuse Flynn of perjury.
-
He testified based on the information he knew at the time of the "pleading".
-
His attorney did not press for the brady material, which means any perjury would have been unintended or unknowingly.
-
He never swore a false oath.
-
If the charges were dropped because the charged crime was not material to an investigation, therefore you cannot be charged with perjury to said immaterial case.
-
If the perjury is based on pleading guilty to something the defended did not believe he was guilty of, the defense can be as simple as "i plead guilty to making false statements based on the information i had from the prosecutors and my defense, had i known then what i know now i would not have plead because i would have known that i was not guilty…. in absence of a transcript, i relied on the honesty and credibility of an institution that mislead me"
-
Charging someone with perjury who pleads guilty to a crime that didnt take place provides validation that the crime didnt take place, further bolstering the defense that there was malfeasance by the prosecutor… and further validating that the defendent was targeted. They would essentially be shit canning the entire case by saying we accept that you pleaded guilty to something that didnt happen. Charging someone with perjury is the catch 22. Either the underlying crime was real or not and the plea is bad both ways.
6a. Either he plead guilty to an actual crime what would be considered prosecutorial misconduct
6b. The crime didnt exist, and by pleading guilty to it we are all admitting that and therefore you perjured yourself. This amounts to a process process crime. Looks even worse after all the things said and projected in the case.