Ever since Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Ret., changed his legal strategy by replacing his defense team with well known attorney Sidney Powell, the DOJ and mainstream media would have you believe that this is little more than a political stunt that is certain to backfire on the General. Looking objectively at the Motion to Compel recently unsealed by the court tells a different story. While the DOJ and government attorneys insist they have exceeded their discovery obligations in this case by turning over more than 20,000 documents, the motion illustrates that this is more about what was not provided than what was.
The motion at hand seeks some forty points of evidence not yet provided under what is known as Brady material law. The Brady material law we hear so much about lately comes from a 1963 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland that requires the Prosecution in any Federal criminal proceeding to turn over any evidence they uncover that may be favorable to the accused. As defined by the California Innocence Project,
Brady material is evidence discovered – but suppressed – by the prosecution that would have helped the defendant in some way, by proving his or her innocence, impeaching the credibility of a witness, or reducing his or her sentence.
Sidney Powell has requested that the court compel the prosecution to provide a long list of potential exculpatory evidence that they have thus far failed to turn over. One such item the motion is seeking includes a letter from the British Embassy to Susan Rice and the incoming NSA team for the Trump Administration about Christopher Steele and his questionable credibility. Related to this is also the request for any and all documents, FBI 302s and/or testimony in connection to Nellie Ohr’s “research” into Michael Flynn including payments, notes, memos, correspondence and instructions “by and between the FBI, CIA or DOD with Stefan Halper – going back as far as 2014 – regarding Michael Flynn, Svetlana Lokhova, Mr. Richard Dearlove of (MI6) and Professor Christofer Andrew (connected with MI5) and Halper’s compensation through the DOD Office of Net Assessment as evidenced by the whistleblower complaint of Adam Lovinger.”
It is important to note the cast of characters mentioned in this demand by the Defense. Stefan Halper was a player in the George Papadopolous case as recently reported on Patriots’ Soapbox (FBI “Informant” Stefan Halper ) and this is not his first time in the midst of a Presidential campaign scandal. Svetlana Lokhova is a historian who holds both British and Russian citizenship and is currently suing Stefan Halper for defamation in wrongfully accusing her of having an affair with Michael Flynn, a man with whom she adamantly insists she has never been alone. Taking a closer look at Lokhova’s case against Halper provides us with a wealth of information of just how this plot against Flynn unfolded courtesy of a group of Professors from Cambridge. As we dive deeper into Lokhova’s story an important distinction to make here is that she has no relationship to Flynn, the U.S. political system or any personal stake in how the Collusion narrative plays out in our country. She is a private citizen who just wants to clear her name.
It began in 1999, when Ms. Lokhova met Professor Christopher Andrew during her studies at Cambridge. He became her long term mentor and eventually co-authored a book with her. Christopher Andrew was a Professor at the University of Cambridge who produced two studies and authored two books in collaboration with KGB defectors. In 2003 Mr. Andrew was appointed as the official historian of MI5. This appointment drew fierce criticism given his close ties to MI5 and his work with former KGB officials and spawned rumors that he was a recruiter for MI5 at Cambridge. Lokhova obtained her Masters degree under Andrew’s guidance and at his suggestion began her PhD in Soviet Intelligence Studies in 2004.
From 2004 through 2012 Lokhova worked in the financial Sector for Morgan Stanley, Citibank, Legal & General and finally Troika Dialog UK which she left in early 2012 after filing a discrimination complaint. When she left the financial sector, Mr. Andrew reached out to her and convinced her to re-start her PhD. He also invited her to join with the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar which was co-founded by Halper. For some reason, Halper avoided Lokhova. She alleges he would sit as far away from her as possible, make a point to fall asleep during her presentation and even refused to sit on the same side of the table with her. In any case, suffice it to say that she never held a conversation with him.
In her complaint, Lakhova points to Halper’s relationship with General Vladimir I. Trubnikov, a former Director of Russian Intelligence whom Halper invited to teach alongside him. She also makes mention of Cambridge Professor Neil Kent, Halper’s seminar partner, who had taught at Russia’s St. Petersberg State Academic Institute between 2002 and 2012. It is through these connections she says that Halper was well aware she was not a Russian Spy.
In 2014, Cambridge Professors Andrew and Sir Richard Dearlove the former head of MI6, close friend and associate of Stefan Halper and someone who had dubbed Christopher Steele as his go-to guy on Russian business matters, invited Ms. Lokhova to attend a dinner to promote the Cambridge Security Initiative (CSI) . The dinner was hosted by Dearlove and was attended by about twenty people, including General Michael Flynn. Ms. Lokhova attended the dinner with a friend Dr. William Foster and was seated between him and Mr. Dearlove. She had a brief introduction to General Flynn and toward the end of the dinner, at the encouragement of Professor Andrew, held a brief twenty minute public conversation with him. General Flynn left the dinner shortly thereafter with DIA official Dan O’Brien. It is worth noting that Stefan Halper, an individual known to Flynn and someone deeply involved with this Cambridge set, did not attend the dinner.
After the dinner, Professor Andrew asked Lokhova to stay in contact with General Flynn in hopes he may attend future seminars or continue to support CSI. Lokhova shared a few occasional emails with Flynn that were general in nature and upon which Andrew was always copied. Mr. Andrew also told her he was most impressed with her research and material and wanted to co-author a book with her. He went as far as obtaining a lucrative publishing contract for her with Basic Books and Penguin with an advance of $175,000.
In 2015, Flynn attended the infamous dinner in Moscow with Vladimir Putin. Although Halper had alleged otherwise, Lokhova never attended the dinner with Flynn, had any conversation with him about going to Moscow and insists she did not even know about his trip there.
In late 2015, Flynn became one of Trump’s advisors and in early January 2016 Professor Andrew invited Lokhova and her partner David North to his home for dinner with Halper and his wife to discuss her upcoming book. Lokhova declined the invitation, having no desire to have dinner with Halper and having been put off by his sudden interest in her work when he had always been rude to her in the past. Professor Andrew was none too happy about this refusal and their relationship began to fall apart. He began insisting that she meet with him weekly if he was to continue co-writing her book and eventually he walked away from the project a few months later. Lokhova spent less time at Cambridge and with CSI.
It was in April 2016 that strange things began to occur. She was told by Professor Neil Kent, Halper’s partner with the seminars, that Halper and another Cambridge academic named Dr. Martland were asking him pointed questions about her and with whom she engaged. Dr. Foster, her dinner partner at that 2014 dinner with Flynn, advised her that Halper was spying on her to get to General Flynn. In July, 2016 Professor Andrew reached out to Lokhova and advised her that rumors he characterized as ludicrous were circulating about her family’s connections to Russian intelligence. Ironically it was during this same month Halper announced he was retiring from Cambridge and the seminar for personal reasons. He later claimed to the media his reason for leaving was due to Kremlin-linked interference in the seminar, as reported by Financial Times in December 2016. Below is an email Lokhova produced about this contradiction from Andrew to Halper:
This was the beginning of a systematic smear against Flynn and Lokhova launched by Halper and those who worked with him. He got Dearlove and Andrew involved as well with Andrew penning an article full of falsehoods about Lokhova and Flynn published in December 2017 in Sunday Times of London. In February of 2018, the Wall Street Journal contact Lokhova about her relationship with Flynn. When she did not respond because she was recovering from a difficult childbirth, and did not feed the ridiculous story, they started in on her colleagues at Cambridge.
The complaint goes on detailing the tangled web of false stories and narratives spun by Halper and his cohorts. If there was any truth to it, one would think Halper would pose a defense in this defamation suit. But rather than presenting evidence in the case to the contrary, Stefan Halper asserted a strange defense. Halper is seeking immunity for being a government agent without officially acknowledging or admitting to being a government agent. Yet he demands dismissal of the suit on these grounds.
Setting that ridiculous notion aside, the whistle-blower also mentioned in this demand, Adam Lovinger was a former employee of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment (ONA). As someone who was pro-Trump he went to join the White House administration in 2017 but was later dragged back to the ONA, suspended, stripped of his security clearances and subsequently fired. The reason? Mr. Lovinger was accused of mishandling classified documents and leaking derogatory stories about James Baker’s leadership to the press. The truth, however, paints an entirely different picture.
Just before Mr. Lovinger was suspended from his ONA position, he made an internal complaint that the agency was not doing its job. He asserted that instead of producing reports on future threats to the U.S., it was instead contracting outside academics, such as Stefan Halper to work as an FBI spy into the Trump campaign. He was later fired and found by an administrative judge to have violated the rules of his position for leaking derogatory information to the press. Interestingly, prior to this hearing the NCIS had conducted an investigation into Mr. Lovinger and had informed both the Pentagon and ONA that they had found no evidence of wrongdoing and closed the case. The problem is, they never advised Mr. Lovinger or his attorney of this exculpatory evidence. In fact, they never even knew the investigation took place. If it were not for the diligence of Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch and their pursuit of Mr. Lovinger’s Pentagon file, we may have never known. You can read more about it here from the Washington Times.
In relation to Mr. Lovinger’s case, Flynn’s defense team is requesting all communications as it pertains to Stefan Halper and the investigation of Mr. Flynn from former Deputy Director of DIA David Shedd and Mike Vickers who were CIA officers, James Baker the former DIA Director, former Deputy Directors LTG Stewart, Doug Wise and the DIA director of Operations (DOD) as well as any such communications received by former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and his senior staff, CIA Director John Brennan and his senior staff and to FBI Directors James Comey and Andrew McCabe and their senior staffs.
Another familiar name that crops up in the motion is Josef Mifsud, the same “Professor” who met with Papadopolous and, along with Halper, played a significant role in the launch of the counter intelligence investigation into the Trump campaign. The motion seeks all information, 302s and recordings of Mifsud’s presence and involvement and his engagement and reporting on Flynn’s presence at the dinner in Moscow in December 2015.
In addition to demands for the release to counsel the un-redacted copies of the Strozk-Page texts and numerous 302s concerning Michael Flynn from various sources, further very specific requests included are for any and all communications among many of those who were investigating the matter, including staff from the special counsel, and their contacts with the media. The motion specifically seeks “All evidence of Press Contacts between the Special Counsel Office, including Andrew Weismann, Ms. Ahmad and Mr. Van Grack (the latter two being the attorneys prosecuting the Flynn case) from the departure of Peter Strozk from Special Counsel team until December 8, 2017 regarding Mr. Flynn.”
The motion later goes on to request information about reporters in the media paid by Fusion GPS to push the Russia Collusion narrative as well as James Clapper’s involvement with David Ignatius, a Washington Post reporter, between December 5, 2016 and February 24, 2017. This all harkens back to the premise that the government, more specifically intelligence agencies, utilized the media to substantiate their investigations even though it was based upon information they themselves fed the media. This in turn also offers some possible explanation into the breathless coverage the media dedicated to the Russia Collusion narrative they foisted upon the American public and vehemently insisted was true despite evidence to the contrary. Has Sidney Powell put her finger on just who were the anonymous sources often cited, but seldom correct?
Then there is the issue of a January 31, 2017 Justice Department memo exonerating Flynn which for some reason remains under seal and until this day still has not been provided to Flynn or his lawyers.
Perhaps one other item asked for by Sidney Powell sums it all up. In her motion she requests any and all evidence of a Senior level FBI Meeting or video conference where Andrew McCabe allegedly said “First we (Expletive) Flynn, the we (Expletive) Trump.” This is coming from the same person involved in the suggestion, along with Rod Rosenstein, of someone wearing a wire to entrap the President as well as approaching members of the cabinet to take Trump down via the 25th Amendment.
Although the mainstream media outlets are covering this rather incredible motion as little more than Flynn pushing a Conspiracy Theory, it seems unlikely that Sidney Powell, an accomplished attorney, former DOJ Prosecutor and author with a stellar career, would risk it all upon baseless accusations. If any of this were not based on some solid evidence, she could simply have Flynn withdraw his guilty plea and take the entire case to trial. It certainly would be easier to persuade a jury of some grand conspiracy than a shrewd and long tenured Judge. Yet, she opted not to do that. Why? Because she is seeking to have the entire case against him dismissed based upon the egregious misconduct by the prosecution. Certainly not the easiest way to avail her client of the charges against him, which really at this juncture amounts to a case of perjury.
In fact, according to an article on the Brady rule written by the Burnham & Gorkhov Law firm:,
Litigating Brady Violations is a difficult and complex process because of the high burden on the Defendant to prove not only was favorable evidence withheld from the defense, but the withheld evidence would have made a difference at trial.
Further, Powell is no stranger to Judge Sullivan. It was before him she took down Andrew Weismann for prosecutorial abuse in the Enron scandal and wrote an entire book on the matter. She knows the Judge is not one to be trifled with and it is doubtful she would be putting on a dog-and-pony show before him. Still the media perpetuates the narrative that this is some sort of game that will end badly for Flynn. This however is not a surprising take given the mention of the media’s role in a good part of this case.
The Judge set some dates down for the Motion, giving the Prosecution until September 24 to respond to Powell’s claims of Brady violations. Sidney Powell then has until October 15 to submit her final response to the court. Miffed by the entire ordeal, the Prosecutors announced they wanted to amend their sentencing guidelines on Flynn possibly now advocating for prison time, which would be due by December 2 and the sentencing hearing has been tentatively set for December 18, 2019. The dates are tentative because much depends on how this motion plays out. Of course the Judge gave Ms. Powell some push back on her claims, as any good Judge would do given how serious they are, but he did not dismiss the motion out of hand. Ms.Powell also held her own making valid arguments as to why this is something the court must consider. It boiled down to one very simple premise:
There never would have been a plea to begin with if the government had met its Brady obligation disclosing what it knew before Mr. Flynn entered a plea and, frankly, before he even made a proffer.
Despite other matters seeking redress, Judge Sullivan stated that addressing the Brady Violations takes priority over and above all else. Until then we must wait as only time will tell if Lady Justice thrives in our courtrooms or has surrendered her sword to the whims of the Deep State.