JJMt said:

---

Would we like this result if Trump's DOJ starts a criminal prosecution against Comey who then pleads guilty but is not yet convicted, Trump loses, and then the Biden DOJ moves to dismiss the case against Comey on a purely political basis?

---

Did the doj write the memo and then move to dismiss Flynn case purely on political basis? Looked like they pointed out the legal flaw in prosecution of Flynn and tried to correct that.

JJMt said:

---

redline248 said:

---

JJMt said:

---

Would we like this result if Trump's DOJ starts a criminal prosecution against Comey who then pleads guilty but is not yet convicted, Trump loses, and then the Biden DOJ moves to dismiss the case against Comey on a purely political basis?

---

1st, do you believe the new DOJ lawyers are doing this on political basis?

---

No, of course not.

---

Well, that's a major distinction. I, personally, would hope that I would be on the side of the law and objectivity. Either side working on political basis (which I'm pretty sure the Mueller lawyers were doing from the go) is wrong.

JJMt said:

---

Would we like this result if Trump's DOJ starts a criminal prosecution against Comey who then pleads guilty but is not yet convicted, Trump loses, and then the Biden DOJ moves to dismiss the case against Comey on a purely political basis?

---

That might happen but the DOJ's Motion to Dismiss would have to do some very strenuous tap dancing to conceal their motives, and thus their complicity.

More likely would be that Biden pardons the whole lot, including himself.

JJMt said:

---

Would we like this result if Trump's DOJ starts a criminal prosecution against Comey who then pleads guilty but is not yet convicted, Trump loses, and then the Biden DOJ moves to dismiss the case against Comey on a purely political basis?

---

That falls under "elections have consequences". I would hate it, but I would also accept it.

The government's response dives into that, and why Fokker should hold in this case and compel Sullivan to grant the motion. I'm no legal beagle so I'll leave that to the professionals to break it down.

JJMt said:

---

You're ruining all of the fun.

And, I'm not sure that I agree. Holder did some unbelievable stuff as AG and no one cared.

---

So did John Mitchell and people cared. But then again he was a Republican.

Ok, my point was that most of us would be angry and blame the DOJ, and not expect or support the the Judge violating the rule of law to "get him". Sorry for the error.

JJMt said:

---

Bunkhouse96 said:

---

I think most would disagree with the DOJ, but noting would support a rouge judge prosecuting the case on his own.

---

Technically, would he be prosecuting since Flynn already pled guilty? Is sentencing the same as prosecuting?

---

I would hope the prosecution has the power to move to dismiss at anytime, even after conviction, in the pursuit of justice.

leakypipes said:

---

The government's response dives into that, and why Fokker should hold in this case and compel Sullivan to grant the motion. I'm no legal beagle so I'll leave that to the professionals to break it down.

---

Pro tip. Sullivan is a federal district judge presiding over a court within the DC Circuit. The precedents set by the DC Circuit are binding on inferior courts within their district.

As blindey pointed out earlier here, federal judges always want to ensure their rulings are consistent with the Circuit court decisions that are binding on them. They can also argue in dicta that they disagree with the binding precedent, but the holding will be in line with them.

Different circuits often reach different conclusions in very similar cases. That's the usual way that SCOTUS gets involved, when there is a divergence between circuit courts.

Thank you Ms. Hawg! I somehow didn't know that the inferior courts within the district were binding to superior rulings.

I should have known that, but for some reason didn't. Obviously makes sense, since SCOTUS is binding on inferior courts.

So thank you ma'am!

JJMt said:

---

You guys are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying or even hinting that this DOJ filed the Motion to Dismiss on a purely political basis. I'm just exploring the argument that the judge has no discretion. I'm throwing out a hypothetical (an old law school professor tactic).

---

If you''re going to approach this from a law professor POV, you must smoke a pipe, and grow a beard.

Thems the rules.

You're welcome.

I just want to point out that in March 2019, the DC Circuit ruled in the McKeever case that the Federal Rules of Criminal Proceedings, in particular Rule 6 therein, control the the exemptions for when a federal judge can authorize a release of grand jury material. If it's not stated in the statute (which Congress passed) then no release. Grand jury secrecy is that important to our judicial system.

That decision, totally unexpected, completely derailed the Mueller Report as then written. They liberally spirnkled grand jury material in their report. Barr gets confirmed but even before he is confirmed, he asks Rosenstein to instruct Mueller to take the binding McKeever decision into account and separate the grand jury material from their report.

Mueller refused to follow those orders. Hence, Barr had to delay the release until DOJ could comply with that decision and make the edits.

And that one decision, one singular decision has impacted Nadler's efforts to use a phony impeachment effort to get a DC federal court to release the grand jury material. Up to SCOTUS now.

And that is how seriously our laws take the importance of binding case law.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

If you''re going to approach this from a law professor POV, you must smoke a pipe, and grow a beard.

Thems the rules.

---

And wear a bow tie!

---

Just go for the Jim Treece Mexican wedding shirt.

My wife reminded me that right as covid hit, the head judge of the western district federal court issued a stop on all cases. She assumed that would also apply to all the courts in that district, but a lower judge was like "nah, we rollin', boys."

Judges get a little power hungry from time to time, I guess?

redline248 said:

---

My wife reminded me that right as covid hit, the head judge of the western district federal court issued a stop on all cases. She assumed that would also apply to all the courts in that district, but the judge was like "nah, we rollin', boys."

Judges get a little power hungry from time to time, I guess?

---

There's an old joke about Gabriel being summoned to ask him if he could convince God to rein things in a bit. Gabriel's response was, "He's God. What do you mean?" Response, "Well now he thinks he's a federal judge."

Wife is not happy I posted which city, so I edited it out. Would you mind removing it from your post? sorry for the inconvenience

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1267581829374246913.html

Another Undercover Huber thread, this time on the DOJ mandamus filing.

Done. No problem.

will25u said:

---

---

https://twitter.com/krlduke/status/1267607028052013056/photo/1

We have lift off !

aggiehawg said:

---

rosco511 said:

---

Thus, the discretion is in place to be used to protect the defendant, not the government.

---

Exactly.

---

As it should be

TTT

EKUAg said:

---

---

Cates has been pushing that about wray for quite a while. He hasn't/can't block Barr/Durham but it sure appears he has blocked congress (well, the Republicans) from information, lied about the Nunes memo, and knew the FBI/DOJ was withholding info from the Flynn defense team.

I don't get it.

2nd page TTT...

Any ideal when the Appeals court will say anything??

Okay, Blindey, Hawg, et al, I want y'alls amicus briefs in the appellate courts by noon tomorrow.

If Gohmert wrote one, I guarantee you every other senator and congressman (Schiff, etc.) is going to lay out "their" truth.