Tag Archives: Why is Brandon Van Grack still assigned?

Flynn prosecution response to Motion to Dismiss for Egregious Government Misconduct Feb 12, 2020, Why is Brandon Van Grack still assigned?

Flynn prosecution response to Motion to Dismiss for Egregious Government
Misconduct Feb 12, 2020, Why is Brandon Van Grack still assigned?

“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

“Why John Brennan, Peter Strzok and DOJ Needed Julian Assange Arrested”…The Conservative Treehouse November 3, 2019

“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019


From the Flynn prosecution response to Motion to Dismiss for Egregious Government Misconduct Feb 12, 2020.

“The defendant does not identify government misconduct in this case, and certainly not conduct that is “outrageous” or “grossly shocking.” His allegations center on the OIG Report, see Mot. to Dismiss at 6-16, but the misconduct described in the Report does not pertain to the investigation of the defendant or his false statements to the FBI on January 24, 2017. And the information in the Report pertaining to SSA 1 does not constitute a Brady violation. Defendant’s
remaining allegations have either previously been rejected by this Court or are irrelevant to the charges to which defendant pleaded guilty.
a. The errors and/or misconduct described in the OIG Report do not pertain to defendant’s false statements to FBI on January 24, 2017.

The defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to providing false statements to FBI agents during an interview on January 24, 2017. The OIG Report does not identify errors or misconduct pertaining to the investigation of the defendant.4
With respect to the investigation of the defendant, the OIG Report “concluded that the FBI had sufficient predication to open [a] full counterintelligence investigation [] of . . . Flynn . . . in August 2016.” OIG Report at 352. The
defendant’s motion focuses on SSA 1’s participation on August 17, 2016, in a strategic intelligence briefing given to then-candidate Trump and the defendant. As the OIG Report explained, the FBI selected SSA 1 to participate in that briefing “in part, because Flynn, who would be attending thebriefing with candidate Trump, was a subject of the ongoing investigations.” Id. at 407-08. The Report does not allege that SSA 1’s participation in the briefing amounted to misconduct. Rather, the Report concludes SSA 1’s participation was a “judgment call[] left to the discretion of FBI officials.” Id. at 408. And the decision for SSA 1 to participate was “reached by consensus” among “higher levels” at the FBI. Id. at 341-42, 408. 5

The OIG Report did identify instances where the FBI did not comply with existing policies and neglected to exercise appropriate diligence, which led to “significant errors or omissions” in the four FISA applications for surveillance targeting Carter Page. But those four FISAs did not target the defendant. To the contrary, the Report affirmed that the FBI “did not seek FISA
surveillance” of the defendant. Id. at 357 n.488. The government does not dispute the seriousness of the “significant errors and omissions” described in the Report. But the compliance and diligence failures and “significant errors” as they relate to the Page FISA applications do not warrant or necessitate the dismissal of the charge against the defendant. ”

Read more:


Why has Attorney General Barr allowed Brandon Van Grack to remain on this case or even remain employed by the USDOJ?


More here: