“The defendant’s protestations of innocence and being misled into a guilty plea are demonstrably false,” wrote prosecutor Brandon Van Grack, who handled Flynn’s case for Mueller and is now the lead prosecutor on it for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington.

Van Grack also dismissed Flynn’s lawyers’ claims that the FBI agents changed the report on the interview in any significant way as it went through several drafts.

“Both interviewing agents’ notes are clear that the defendant maintained he had ‘[n]o recollection’ of speaking with the Russian Ambassador about U.S. Sanctions, and that the defendant did not have a ‘long drawn out’ conversation with the Russian Ambassador about ‘don’t do something,’” the prosecutor wrote.

Van Grack said the conduct of the FBI in the pivotal Jan. 24, 2017, interview at Flynn’s West Wing office was proper and that agents even offered up extra details when he claimed not to remember some of the interactions they were questioning him about.

“When the defendant lied in his interview, the FBI was engaged in a legitimate and significant investigation into whether individuals associated with the campaign of then-candidate Donald J. Trump were coordinating with the Russian government in its activities to interfere with the 2016 presidential election,” the prosecutor wrote. “The defendant was not ‘ambushed’ at the interview, and the interviewing agents certainly did not engage in ‘outrageous’ conduct that undermines the fact that he lied.”

Prosecutors stressed they had no duty to provide any evidence to Flynn before charging him, but that they did share a number of potential weaknesses in the investigation with him. That included the fact that one of the FBI agents who interviewed him, Peter Strzok, had sent text messages that showed a preference for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and that both agents’ initial read on their exchange with Flynn was that he was being candid with them.

Flynn’s new attorneys have complained that the disclosures were belated, with some key information not being relayed to Flynn’s then-lawyers until the day before the the short-lived member of Trump’s Cabinet entered his guilty plea two years ago.

Van Grack said Flynn voluntarily met with Mueller’s team five times in the weeks leading up to his guilty plea and prosecutors were free to share as much or as little of their case with Flynn as they wished.

“The defendant was represented by counsel, was free to leave at any time, and was afforded protections by the government against his statements during those meetings being used against him,” Van Grack wrote. “During the entirety of the interviews, the government had not filed criminal charges against the defendant, and a plea agreement had not been signed. In short, the government had no obligation to provide the defendant with any information before those interviews.”

Flynn’s new lawyers have also suggested that his prior attorneys, Robert Kelner and Steven Anthony of Covington & Burling, had a conflict of interest in representing him in the criminal case because they also helped prepare Foreign Agent Registration Act submissions that prosecutors believed were false and could lead to criminal charges against Flynn.

On Friday, Van Grack filed with the court new evidence that he had raised the issue with Flynn’s then-lawyers on at least two occasions during the plea negotiations and that Flynn’s attorneys said they’d discussed the potential hitch with Flynn and that he waived any conflict. In a “Memo to File,” Van Grack said he flagged the potential conflict at a meeting with Flynn’s lawyers on Nov. 1, 2017, and again in a phone call two weeks later, just before Flynn’s first meeting with Mueller’s team.

“Mr. Anthony stated that they had ‘thoroughly discussed’ the issue with their client, including that they (Covington) could be fact witnesses and have differing interests from their client on issues relating to the alleged false statements. Mr. Anthony further represented that Flynn waived ‘any such conflict,’” Van Grack wrote in the memo.

Flynn is awaiting sentencing as soon as next month by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan. On Monday, Sullivan canceled a scheduled hearing next week on the demand from Flynn’s legal team for a panoply of evidence about the origins of the Trump-Russia probe, including aspects that seem remote from the charges Flynn admitted to.

Flynn’s defense team said it wants the evidence in order to demonstrate extraordinary government misconduct that would merit dismissing the case. However, they have passed up making any effort to actually unwind Flynn’s guilty plea, in which he acknowledged under oath that he was guilty of deliberately making false statements to the FBI in the January 2017 interview.

POLITICO NEWSLETTERS POLITICO Playbook Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics. Sign Up Loading By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

At a December 2018 hearing, Sullivan asked the former Defense Intelligence Agency chief directly whether he wanted to withdraw his plea or challenge the circumstances of his interview. Flynn said no.

It is unclear whether Sullivan will give Flynn another chance to back out at his upcoming sentencing. Last year, prosecutors — citing Flynn’s extensive cooperation — had recommended a sentence of no jail time and up to one year probation. Prosecutors have not yet signaled whether they plan to change that recommendation in light of more recent developments.

Flynn faces a maximum possible sentence of up to five years in prison on the current charge. Sullivan seemed to hint at the hearing last year that he was considering sending the former Trump aide to jail despite prosecutors’ recommendation.

Withdrawing the plea would void Flynn’s plea bargain with prosecutors and expose him to the possibility of charges beyond the single false-statement felony count he admitted to.

In a separate filing late Friday, Flynn’s attorneys continued to press their demand for access to data from mobile phones used by Malta-born professor Joseph Mifsud, who is suspected of playing a role in U.S. government efforts directed at Trump campaign advisers in 2016.

Attorney General Bill Barr reportedly persuaded Italian officials to turn over the phones after traveling to that country on two occasions earlier this year seeking cooperation in a Justice Department inquiry into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation.

Flynn’s attorneys argue that the phones could contain strong proof that he was unfairly targeted.

“Any evidence that Mifsud’s phones trace back to the FBI or the CIA or evidence of his assignments in the data on those phones could be crucial to Mr. Flynn’s defense,” Powell wrote. She said prosecutors in Flynn’s case were wrong to dismiss the relevance of the devices while not even acknowledging whether they’re in the U.S. government’s possession.

There’s no indication Mifsud had any direct contact with Flynn, but the ex-national security adviser’s lawyers noted that the Maltese academic was present at a 2015 dinner in Moscow where Flynn sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Even if the maneuvering by Flynn’s defense amounts to naught in the courts, the lawyers’ efforts to surface complaints about the Trump-Russia probe and the Mueller investigation could improve chances of Flynn receiving a pardon or commutation from President Donald Trump. Trump has already offered praise for Flynn’s new lead lawyer, Powell, calling her a “GREAT LAWYER” in a June tweet.

Just last week, Trump repeated Powell’s claim about evidence being withheld by the Justice Department in Flynn’s case and added, “This is a disgrace!”

Friday’s submission was signed by Van Grack and another longtime prosecutor, Jocelyn Ballantine. As is customary, it was submitted under the name of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jessie Liu.

