dropping - Bad Sporters

Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Why Is The Justice Department Dropping The Charges?

admin — Thu, 28 May 2020 16:17:44 +0000

The Justice Department is dropping charges against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser.

Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

hide caption

toggle caption

Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

The Justice Department is dropping charges against Michael Flynn, President Trump’s former national security adviser.

Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP

Why is the government seeking to drop charges against Michael Flynn even though he pleaded guilty — in two admissions in court — to committing the crime at issue?

The short answers: The Justice Department is giving him a break. And Flynn has played his cards well.

The long answer: It’s a long story.

The deal

Flynn admitted to lying to the FBI about conversations he had had with Russia’s then-ambassador to the United States as he and the rest of President-elect Donald Trump’s camp waited in the wings early in 2017.

That case appeared clear. But the former Army lieutenant general also had been involved with other enterprises that might have resulted in more charges — including undisclosed foreign lobbying — and his deal with prosecutors swept that off the table.

It also apparently avoided prospective charges for Flynn’s son. Flynn and his attorneys considered the deal to be the least bad way out of the jam.

“My guilty plea and agreement to cooperate with the special counsel’s office reflect a decision I made in the best interests of my family and of our country. I accept full responsibility for my actions,” Flynn said in late 2017 at the time of his plea.

All the same, few knew at the time of that submission how problematic Flynn’s fateful interview with the FBI would be for nearly everyone else involved, including the specific FBI agents, the leadership of the bureau and the Justice Department.

The conversation

Former FBI Director James Comey since has described the question about whether Flynn had lied, or whether to charge him, as “a close one.”

U.S. Attorney Timothy Shea quoted that statement in his brief about the Flynn case filed Thursday to seek the dismissal of the charges, along with the notes of the FBI agents that also have since come to light.

In those materials, the investigators appear to wonder what they’re doing preparing to interview Flynn.

“What is our goal — truth, admission or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?” one note read. Another says: “[White House] will be furious” and “protect our institution by not playing games.”

Flynn’s attorneys fought to get this material unsealed after their dealings with the government soured. They call it the basis for their claim that the FBI effectively entrapped him.

The Justice Department’s new brief cites these materials and argues that the bureau had all but concluded that Flynn wasn’t a counterintelligence risk as it was looking into prospective links between Trump’s camp and the Russian interference in the 2016 election.

In this new reasoning, Flynn’s false statements to investigators weren’t ‘”material’ to any bona fide investigation,” Shea wrote — so the case shouldn’t continue.

What about the guilty pleas?

Attorney General William Barr was clear in an interview with CBS News on Thursday evening: “People sometimes plead to things that turn out not to be crimes, and the Department of Justice is not persuaded that this was material to any legitimate counterintelligence investigation. So it was not a crime.”

Change in the weather

Also unknown to the public at the time of Flynn’s interview were the disputes about it taking place within and between the FBI and the Justice Department.

The procedures — or lack thereof — that were followed then helped create the opening for the new legal interpretation by Barr that the Flynn case was improper.

Comey’s fingerprints and those of other former bureau leaders were all over the decisions made about what to do and whom to tell and not tell about Flynn’s interview. Those names are now mud with most Republicans, and that, separate from the legal interpretations, make the politics safe within the GOP for Trump and Barr to let Flynn go.

Democrats argue that Trump and Barr have made a mockery of what was intended to be an independent Justice Department, first with the intercession in the sentencing of Trump’s friend Roger Stone and now with Flynn.

The player

Through all this, Flynn and his attorneys sought the best deal they could get at each juncture. First, they turned state’s evidence.

Intitially, prosecutors called him a model cooperator and told a judge they would be fine if he received a sentence of only probation, even though federal guidelines contemplated at least a few months in prison.

The longer Flynn cooperated, however, the more fraught became his relationship with the feds. After giving prosecutors everything they wanted in the Russia matter, Flynn became less forthcoming when the government brought a case against his former business partner, prosecutors said.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for Washington D.C., which took the prosecutorial baton from special counsel Robert Mueller’s office, told a judge that it thought Flynn should be sentenced to as many as six months.

That could include probation, it said — but didn’t rule out the prospect of prison time, given how much less helpful prosecutors said Flynn had become.

By this point, in mid-2019, Flynn had changed out his legal team, and it howled at the prospect of prison after all the work he had done for the Justice Department.

That “stunning and vindictive reversal,” as Flynn’s lawyers called it, was one basis for their request to withdraw the guilty plea earlier this year, notwithstanding Flynn’s admission of guilt and months of cooperation.

It also fueled their quest to obtain more of the core documents about Flynn’s interview, which revealed the notes from the FBI investigators.

The sentencing that wasn’t

In a strange twist, what might have set the stage for Flynn’s eventual release was an encounter with an outspoken judge who raised the prospect of punishing him more severely.

Nearly everyone, including Trump, expected Flynn to be sentenced in late 2018 when he appeared before Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington. Flynn and prosecutors invited family members to be with them in court.

But the judge yielded surprises and headlines with his spirited remarks about the case.

“I’m not hiding my disgust, my disdain, for this criminal offense,” he said.

Sullivan asked prosecutors whether Flynn might have committed “treason,” raising the prospect that Flynn might get prison time after all. No, the government said, it didn’t consider that part of the case.

Ultimately, Sullivan deferred the sentencing because he said he had more questions about the matter, adding more months to Flynn’s legal saga.

If Sullivan had issued a sentence then and resolved Flynn’s case, Flynn’s admissions and guilt might have stood. His legal odyssey might have ended there.

Instead, the judge’s delay led to the phase of the story in which Flynn replaced his attorneys and broke with the government. His new legal team fought for and obtained the FBI memos and sought to rescind the guilty plea.

That dispute was still ongoing when the Justice Department decided this week to drop the case. In the end, Flynn and his lawyers outlasted everyone.

Source link

The post Michael Flynn Pleaded Guilty. Why Is The Justice Department Dropping The Charges? first appeared on Bad Sporters.

Judge not dropping charges in FBI hoops probe

admin — Thu, 15 Feb 2018 16:58:42 +0000

U.S. District Court Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss federal criminal charges against three of the 10 men arrested for their alleged roles in the FBI’s two-year investigation into college basketball corruption.

Attorneys representing former Adidas executives James Gatto and Merl Code and former sports agent Christian Dawkins argued in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Thursday morning that what their clients are accused of doing — allegedly funneling money from Adidas to the families of high-profile recruits to ensure that the players signed with Adidas-sponsored schools, and then Adidas and certain sports agents and financial planners once they turned pro — doesn’t constitute a federal crime.

Their attorneys also challenged the government’s argument that the victims in the case are the universities where the players signed, because the players certified that they were eligible to play when they weren’t, after they or their families accepted improper benefits.

Gatto, Code and Dawkins face one felony count each of wire fraud. The trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 1.

The federal government has dropped charges against Jonathan Augustine, a former AAU basketball director from Florida, in the Adidas scandal case.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New York dropped federal charges against Jonathan Brad Augustine, a former AAU director in Orlando, Florida, who was accused of conspiring with the others to persuade two high school players to sign with Louisville and one with Miami.

“It’s not surprising to me that the case has issues because it should have never been brought,” said New York-based attorney Jeffrey Einhorn, who represents former USC assistant Tony Bland in a separate federal case related to the FBI probe. “Everything about this case stinks.”

Regardless of what happens with the criminal cases, sources with knowledge of the FBI investigation told ESPN this week that the clandestine probe could result in potential NCAA violations for as many as three dozen Division I programs, based on information included in wiretap conversations from the defendants and financial records, emails and cell phone records seized from NBA agent Andy Miller. His office was raided on the same day the FBI arrested 10 men, including four assistant coaches, in late September.

“It’s not the mid-major programs who were trying to buy players to get to the top,” a source told ESPN. “It’s the teams that are already there.”

Miller, the president and founder of ASM Sports in New Jersey, relinquished his NBA agent certification in December. He represented NBA stars such as Kevin Garnett, Kristaps Porzingis, Kyle Lowry and Serge Ibaka.

The sources told ESPN that many of the alleged incidents involve illegal cash payments to prospects and their families, as well as players and their families receiving tens of thousands of dollars from agents while they were still playing in college. In some cases, according to the sources, NCAA head coaches were aware of the payments, while others didn’t have knowledge of the schemes.

“At some point, the NCAA is going to see this stuff,” the source said. “What are they going to do? They can’t sit on their hands. If one kid is getting punished at USC for taking money, then the kid taking money at another school has to be punished, too.”

Code, Dawkins and Gatto are accused of scheming to send $100,000 to the family of five-star prospect Brian Bowen to ensure that he would sign with Louisville last summer. The FBI alleges Bowen’s father accepted the money; Bowen says he was unaware of the scheme.

The FBI investigation led to the firings of longtime Cardinals coach Rick Pitino and athletics director Tom Jurich.

Sources close to the investigation told ESPN that Augustine’s charges were dismissed because evidence showed that he never gave the money he received from the defendants to a high school player they wanted to sign with Miami. Instead, Augustine kept the money for himself.

Attorneys for Gatto, Code and Dawkins have filed motions in an attempt to suppress wiretap interceptions made during the FBI’s investigation. Among other issues, according to the attorneys, is that the U.S. Attorney’s application for the wiretap was improper.

Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal reported that one of the FBI undercover agents involved in the corruption probe is accused of using the government’s money on gambling, food and drinks, and was taken off the assignment once his behavior was discovered.

“The things that are happening in this case don’t happen in a federal case that’s done properly,” Einhorn said. “I’m not going to comment about the FBI agent, but what’s next?”

Bland and three other former assistant coaches — Oklahoma State’s Lamont Evans, Arizona assistant Emanuel “Book” Richardson and Auburn’s Chuck Person — are charged in separate cases related to the FBI probe, along with former NBA referee and Atlanta clothier Rashan Michel and financial planner Munish Sood. The government alleges they also conspired to funnel money from Adidas to players and their families.

“The wrong people were charged,” Einhorn said. “These people are part of a situation that is much bigger than them. It’s hard for me to say with a straight face that these people charged are outliers. This is what NCAA basketball is, and it’s been that way for a long time.”

Source link

The post Judge not dropping charges in FBI hoops probe first appeared on Bad Sporters.