By Printus LeBlanc

On Friday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced the indictment of 13 Russian internet trolls and the companies they worked for. The timing was curious because it was a surprise announcement. Normally something leaks about an impending action, but there was no such leak this time. When you look at the few months the FBI has had, it becomes understandable why they made the announcement. They wanted attention on something other than their recent failures. One of those failures seems to be the possibility former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn might withdraw his guilty plea, or his new judge may just throw it out altogether.

You may remember Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI on December 1, 2017. Flynn was interviewed by two FBI agents on January 24, 2017, in a meeting set up by former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe. Since the guilty plea, a slew of revelations has called not just the guilty plea of Flynn, but the Mueller prosecution into question.

Shortly after Flynn pled guilty, Judge Rudolph Contreras was recused for a still unknown reason. What is known about Judge Contreras is he signed off on the initial Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to spy on Carter Page. The world learned from the Nunes Memo and the Graham-Grassley criminal referral that the FISA warrant was obtained using the Christopher Steele dossier, an unverified opposition research document by the former British spy working for the Clinton campaign in 2016.

This constituted a “fraud on the court.” Was Contreras recused because he signed the illegal FISA warrant that started the chain of events leading to Flynn’s prosecution, i.e., Fruit of the Poisonous Tree?

The new judge in the Flynn case is very familiar with government misconduct. Judge Emmet Sullivan presided over the prosecution of former Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens. Following the trial, a whistleblower came forward to allege misconduct by the FBI and DOJ. After review of the whistleblower’s evidence Judge Sullivan dismissed the corruption conviction of Stevens and lambasted the federal prosecutors stating, “In nearly 25 years on the bench, I’ve never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I’ve seen in this case.” He would go on to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the DOJ lawyers that prosecuted the case.

The government’s misconduct in Steven’s case was so egregious Judge Sullivan changed the way he handled cases. He now issues a Brady Order in every criminal case before his court. In the 2016 Cardozo Law Review, he stated, “Following the Stevens case, I have issued a standing Brady Order for each criminal case on my docket, updating it in reaction to developments in the law.”

Brady material consists of exculpatory or impeaching evidence held by the prosecution that is material to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The Supreme Court ruled in Brady v. Maryland that the material must be turned over to the defendant if they request it, not doing so violates due process.

This is troublesome for the Mueller team considering the “pitbull” of his team, Andrew Weissmann has a sordid history of judicial malpractice. He convinced an employee of Arthur Anderson to plead guilty to something that wasn’t a crime. Mr. Weissmann was also overturned by the Fifth Circuit after making up a crime to indict four Merrill Lynch executives. And just last week it was revealed Weissmann was involved in another case in which Brady material was withheld in late 1990s. How does someone that routinely violates the civil rights of defendants continue to rise in the DOJ?

Last week we learned the FBI agents that interviewed Flynn didn’t believe he was lying. In a report from Byron York of the Washington Examiner he states, “two sources familiar with the meetings, Comey told lawmakers that the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn did not believe that Flynn had lied to them, or that any inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. As a result, some of those in attendance came away with the impression that Flynn would not be charged with a crime pertaining to the Jan. 24 interview.”

If the two agents that interviewed Michael Flynn didn’t believe he lied, why was he charged with lying?

Many people are asking if Flynn didn’t believe he lied, why would he plead guilty? The answer is simple, the weight of the federal government. The federal government does not run out of money when prosecuting someone. However, a private citizen cannot afford a $500 an hour lawyer for too long.

Former federal prosecutor Sydney Powell recently wrote an op-ed about the Flynn prosecution and an innocent person pleading guilty stating, “they simply can no longer withstand the unimaginable stress of a criminal investigation. They and their families suffer sheer exhaustion in every form — financial, physical, mental, and emotional. Add in a little prosecutorial duress — like the threat of indicting your son — and, presto, there’s a guilty plea.”

The recent revelations about the validity of the charges, the FISA warrants, and orders by the new judge call the entire Flynn prosecution into question. He should withdraw his guilty plea, as this ongoing miscarriage of justice is doing great damage to the nation. Judge Sullivan is a jurist that refuses to put up with government maleficence in his courtroom and could be the worst nightmare for the Mueller team, but Flynn has to fight.

Printus LeBlanc is a contributing editor at Americans for Limited Government.