Quote Originally Posted by Wales-Bales View Post
Could you explain what this means?

I'd have thought the fact that the same people doctored the evidence against Page would be a big red flag, but maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Certainly,

Flynn and his new brief sought to argue that under the Brady obligations they were not provided with evidence as required that would exonerate him. The court classified the itemised things that Flynn's lawyer wanted into 6 types:

1.Information that Does Not Exist
2. Information the Government Does Not Possess
3. Information Mr. Flynn Concedes He Is Not Entitled to
4. Information that Has Already Been Provided
5. Information that Is Unrelated to the Charges Against Mr. Flynn or to His Sentencing
6. Remaining Requests

In each case the Judge found against Flynn and cast doubt on his lawyer's understanding of Brady and had some questions about her ethical behaviour.

It also concluded on your fabrication smears that "Having carefully reviewed the interviewing FBI agents’ notes, the draft interview reports, the final version of the FD302, and the statements contained therein, the Court agrees with the government that those documents are “consistent and clear that [Mr. Flynn] made multiple false statements to the [FBI] agents about his communications with the Russian Ambassador on January 24, 2017.

I'd go and find a different fence to fall off if I were you!