drcrinum said:
Question for you (or any other legal beagles): That 'ex parte hearing' between Sidney Powell & Judge Sullivan...how does something like that happen where the defense can arrange a special surprise hearing with the judge? There has to be some behind-the-scenes communications going on. Does the prosecution even attend? I have a sneaky feeling that something big is about to happen on September 10 when the scheduled hearing on Brady material & security clearances is held.
Ex parte hearings are rare but do occur when one side has some type of emergency or discovers malfeasance by the opposition, as has occurred here.
The prosecution here, which includes Brandon Van Grack, a Mueller toadie, has been all over the place with whether or not the material they have includes classified information. But classified or not,
Brady material is still
Brady material. And Judge Sullivan's order regarding such was after the guilty plea.
Procedurally speaking, Flynn's early guilty plea, in which he waived further discovery, would seem to foreclose Flynn having access to this discovery but in light of the prosecutorial misconduct in hiding the exculpatory evidence while steam rolling Flynn into a guilty plea, plus Judge Sullivan's standing order are mitigating factors.
Remember that early hearing when Judge Sullivan went off on Flynn as being treasonous? That was after an
ex parte hearing with the prosecution (then still under Team Mueller's control). Clearly Team Mueller had lied to the Judge to get him so worked up, something he now realizes that he was played. How many other times has the prosecution deliberately misled, omitted or flat out lied during this entire matter?
Then remember what happened shortly before the recent trial of Flynn's associate, Rafekian, wherein Flynn had been scheduled to testify on behalf of the state but they pulled a fast one at the last second and declared Flynn was a co-conspirator? All because Flynn refused to lie for them? Flynn's sentencing had repeatedly been delayed just so Flynn would testify in that trial, at the request of the prosecution. Did they really not know what Flynn's testimony was going to be before the eve of trial? Doubtful.
But then discovery before the Rafekian trial produced documents from Flynn's former attorneys Covington, Burling revealing a distinct conflict of interest that was very harmful to Flynn and provided him with a new perspective. He was misled by his own counsel. IOW, what he thought he knew and would testify to, was a lie. So he wasn't going to testify as the prosecution wanted.
If I were Judge Sullivan, I would be tearing my hair out over this case which should have been just a routine sentencing but has become a multi-headed hydra.