Sidney Powell on Covington Law Firm discovery deficiencies US v Flynn, May 6, 2020 filing, “Covington’s submission is rife with admissions that it
has not complied and will not comply with this Court’s Order”
“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they call ‘The Resistance’ and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning of the executive branch.” …Attorney General Barr
And I’ve now found a witness who says the original 302 did in fact say that Flynn was honest with the agents.”...Attorney Sidney Powell
“Instead of doing so, the government has continued to defy its
constitutional, ethical and legal obligations to this Court and to the defense, and to hide evidence that it knows exonerates Mr. Flynn. As is the essence of the problem here, instead of protecting its citizens, the “government” is protecting its own criminal conduct and operatives.”…Attorney Sidney Powell October 23, 2019
From US v Michael Flynn
MOTION TO COMPEL AND RESPONSE TO
COVINGTON & BURLING’S DISCOVERY CERTIFICATION
Michael T. Flynn’s former counsel Covington & Burling LLP (“Covington”) was twice ordered by this Court to search its records and to produce to its former client the documents to which he is entitled, for use by successor counsel in continuing defense of this criminal case. It has been almost a year since Mr. Flynn terminated Covington, and over nine months since this Court issued its first Minute Order, on July 16, 2019.
In that first Order, this Court emphasized Covington’s duty to promptly transfer the file regarding Mr. Flynn’s case to successor counsel. On July 25, 2019, Covington certified to this Court that its transfer of Mr. Flynn’s “case file” to new counsel was “complete,” and that its working case file shared by lawyers engaged on the matter.” ECF No. 99-2 at 1. The new Flynn defense team took Covington at its word. After all, it provided numerous hard drives and over a million pages of documents, including things like the rules for the D.C. courts.
Almost a year later, on April 9, 2020, Covington alerted Mr. Flynn’s current counsel that it was transferring more documents, beginning with 30 new pages of production that it had previously overlooked. ECF No. 177-2. This supplemental transfer—it was to be the first of three to date—included internal emails discussing case strategy and two pages of handwritten notes, one
of which is relevant to the crucial lawyer-client dispute that had arisen in the interim. That precise dispute is the foundation for Mr. Flynn’s Supplemental Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. ECF No. 160-2.
On April 28, 2020, Covington announced a second supplemental transfer of “overlooked” documents. ECF No. 183-1. Remarkably, this second transfer contained 6,756 documents, consisting of some 18,960 pages (calculated by Bates numbers). On the same day, April 28, 2020, this Court sua sponte issued a further Minute Order, directing Covington to produce forthwith to
successor counsel “all documents or communications concerning the firm’s representation of Mr. Flynn that were not previously transferred in the rolling production” (emphasis added). The Court gave Covington until noon on May 4, 2020, to file a Notice of Compliance that it had made the instructed transfer.
Finally, in what purported to be compliance with the April 28, 2020 Order, Covington made a third supplement transfer of documents on May 2, 2020. The third tranche consisted of 75 pages in eight documents. Some were duplicate copies of material that Mr. Flynn’s counsel had already seen, but with notations by Covington lawyers. There were also thirty-two pages of handwritten notes that had not previously been produced. Then, on May 4, 2020, Covington filed
a Notice of “Compliance”—full of lame excuses and obfuscations for its unilateral determination not to comply with this Court’s Order. ECF No. 192.
Despite its purported compliance, Covington’s submission is rife with admissions that it has not complied and will not comply with this Court’s Order. At worst, Covington is attempting to convince this Court to accept compliance with an order that the Court did not issue. At best, Covington is seeking clarification of the Court’s actual order to excuse its non-compliance. There
are three chief areas of concern.”