“Given the material defense counsel has requested, which remains outstanding, Mr. Van Grack’s denial that further Brady material exists is patently absurd.” Sidney Powell, motion quoted in Law & Crime, 2019 — Flynn’s pleading, not a court finding
Allegation On August 30, 2019, counsel for Michael Flynn filed a brief in support of a motion to compel Brady material and for an order to show cause (D.D.C. No. 17-232). The brief names Van Grack, Zainab Ahmad, and “members of the Special Counsel team under the direction and supervision of Mr. Andrew Weissmann.” It alleges suppression of exculpatory evidence. It quotes an August 16, 2019, letter from Van Grack saying a 330-page production was “a courtesy and not because production of this information is required by either Brady … or the Court’s Standing Order.” Those are Powell’s claims and Van Grack’s letter as she excerpted it. A motion is not a contempt order.
The Epoch Times reported the same week that Powell said Van Grack had refused unredacted Strzok-Page messages and Bruce Ohr 302s. Law & Crime quoted the “patently absurd” line. Conservative Treehouse later (Feb. 18, 2020) excerpted Powell’s reply: that producing information before sentencing “proves the point that he suppressed it when it was most important … before his guilty plea.” Still her brief.
Judge Sullivan did not, on this record, enter a finding that Van Grack was convicted of a crime or held in criminal contempt. Do not invent one.