One question that popped into my head about this that I asked Ken White about. In case you were wondering like I was:
So if he tried to say those statements aren’t true, is that then perjury? He will probably try some bullshit defense about being pressured, etc.
vyshka
4824
Someone else pointed out it is also just a motion to withdraw the plea. The judge can deny it.
Flynn is going to prison. Hope it’s the max sentence.
That’s basically how his defense would have to frame it, that he was pressured and/or deceived deliberately by the DOJ and FBI investigators. He’s already about 2/3 of the way down that path anyway with his claims that FBI investigators entrapped him into lying to them.
What’s weird is that Flynn had a no-jail recommendation for his cooperation originally, and then decided to get a new lawyer and began doing Trumpist performance art in written motions where the typical stance of someone taking a guilty plea deal is one of contriteness, and instead got belligerent.
I have a feeling the judge will allow the motion, and let the case go forward. Flynn likely feels that he’ll get a jail sentence in this case now, but that he’ll be pardoned.
Really? Hasn’t Flynn already been convicted?
magnet
4828
He hasn’t been sentenced, and that is the point where trying to withdraw a guilty plea would be very difficult.
Which strikes me as fair. He pled guilty as part of an agreement with prosecutors. Regardless of the merits of this Flynn’s case, if a defendant thinks prosecutors aren’t holding up their end up the bargain then at the very least they should be allowed to withdraw their plea. Otherwise there is not much incentive for prosecutor to keep their promises.
Menzo
4829
I guess that’s an interesting take, since the reason prosecutors changed their recommendation on sentencing is because Flynn thwarted their efforts and lied about cooperating.
I don’t doubt that you’re right, since I really don’t know. That said, plea agreements don’t usually contain sentencing guarantees, do they? The person pleas and cooperates to get the best outcome, and the outcome reflect the degree to which they cooperated?
magnet
4831
Sure, neither side was satisfied with the outcome. But regardless of how this started, both sides acknowledge that the agreement has been broken. So there is no reason to expect either side to do whatever they promised.
The judge decides the sentence, so there is no guarantee of anything. But prosecutors can make a formal recommendation, and originally they recommended no jail time for Flynn.
Any idea how often this happens? Person makes a plea deal, then pooches the cooperation, then gets a harsher sentencing recommendation because he pooched the cooperation, then withdraws the guilty plea and the judge goes along?
Menzo
4833
They can’t guarantee anything, but plead agreements, I imagine, almost always include sentencing recommendation guarantees.
i.e. plead guilty and we will recommend only 3 years vs. the 20+ you could be sentenced to.
Prosecutors can also include things like only charging the defendant with a lesser crime as well.
magnet
4834
I don’t know how often it happens, but it happens often enough that procedures already exist that are specifically meant for handling withdrawn pleas.
The US is headed by a dimwit crime boss, confirmed. As if anyone didn’t know. And he has an entire propaganda network and party behind him.
Listening to Ken White’s podcast with Josh Barro, it does sound like White thinks it’s about 50/50 that the judge accepts the motion to withdraw from the plea agreement from Flynn.
Per White, the motion fully satisfies one of the three elements for a successful motion, but doesn’t address two others. I get the impression that if this were a less politically charged case, the judge might indeed reject the motion to withdraw out of hand. Given the political nature of the case, it’s possible the judge will consider it.
But given that, as I think about it, having Flynn motion to withdraw his plea agreement literally just days/weeks before sentencing is likely to not find the judge in the best good humor, either.
Credibility, corroboration, yada yada but:
Perhaps the most explosive element of the interview came at the very end. It has to do with Parnas’ dealing with Dmytro Firtash, a Ukrainian gas billionaire who has been stranded in Vienna for years as he fights extradition to the U.S. on foreign bribery charges.
Parnas told Maddow that he and Giuliani struck a deal with Firtash whereby the oligarch would provide the Trump team with information and, in exchange, the DOJ would drop the charges against the Ukrainian mogul.
“We had to promise Firtash something,” Parnas said. “It was basically telling him we knew his case is worthless here and that he’s being prosecuted for no reason and basically it could get taken care of.”
Federal prosecutors have described Firtash as an “upper-echelon” member of Russian organized crime.
“It was all connected,” Parnas said. “At the end of the day, the agenda was to make sure that the Ukrainians announced the Biden investigation.”
He went on to say that Attorney General Bill Barr was “in the loop.”
“Mr. Barr had to have known everything,” Parnas added. “Attorney General Barr was basically on the team.”
Setting aside the interview, which could all be blather, there is evidence in the documents he turned over to the House of another tit-for-tat: Lutsenko offered to provide alleged evidence to be used against Hunter Biden in return for the removal of Ambassador Yovanovitch, so Trump removed Ambassador Yovanovitch.
That’s kind of the textbook example of official bribery: Lutsenko sought something (a reprisal against the Ambassador he hated) in the form of an official act, and offered something of value (political dirt) to the official in order to get it. And the Trump team played ball.
Cooper interviewed him as well. Apparently The NY Times too.
Come on guys, are we still discussing this? Quid pro quos are totally fine - all diplomats do it all the time. Nothing to see here other than a witch hunt.
