aggiehawg said:

---

Missed the name of this judge here.

---

Pillard

aggiehawg said:

---

Jeez this judge is stupid.

---

I'm not disagreeing with you, but is it possible they've chosen to sell their soul to "for the greater good"?

IOW, "this is what I believe, but the whole is more important than the individual", ala the State".

IMO, it can only be one way or the other.

Here's comes the race baiting Wilkins again. Only now he's on to bribery as the reason for the prosecution is dropped. Dumb hypothetical because an amicus is not required to report and prosecute bribery of a public official.

Wilkins is on with his ridiculous hypothethical??

what is this moron up to now?

I was expecting some race related hypothetical........

CyclingAg82 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Missed the name of this judge here.

---

Pillard

---

Thanks. She's still stupid.

At least Wilkins limited his idiocy to one question.......

aggiehawg said:

---

CyclingAg82 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Missed the name of this judge here.

---

Pillard

---

Thanks. She's still stupid.

---

Oh yeah.......my wife got a headache listening to her....

CyclingAg82 said:

---

Wilkins is on with his ridiculous hypothethical??

what is this moron up to now?

I was expecting some race related hypothetical........

---

He was excoriated among legal circles for that last time. So he went with a bribery hypothetical this time.

If y'all listen to it on C-span they put the name/mug shot up of whoever is talking in real time. just fyi...

Henderson: Ezra Pound, when you find a fish in the water. IOW, Sullivan's action bring up the clarity that something is wrong also the futility of trying to keep the judge on the reservation without resorting to mandamus.

Sidney laughed.

I am not a lawyer, but listening to these questions by judges brings to mind a statement by Clob94:

"Yesus Christi folks, stop picking gnat **** out of pepper."

Has the Solicitor General weighed in yet??

Or will they question him next? Unfamiliar with the processes at work here.

The media is getting ready to drop "new" news on Flynn...

The judges are setting it up.

CyclingAg82 said:

---

Has the Solicitor General weighed in yet??

Or will they question him next? Unfamiliar with the processes at work here.

---

Not yet.

Smillet is up again, and following up on the bribery hypothetical that Wilkins brought up.........

She is an a-hole, we know how she is going to rule.

I have no idea what Pillard just tried to ask.

Millett has now skyrocketed up into my top 10 list of moron obama judges. She is 2 slots ahead of Pillard, in 5th place (Watson in HI is still in first).

And Wilkins is up again......wow this is an idiot. Big.

Wall is up. He was great last time.

Wall is up now, Acting SG.

Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) is nowhere close to a 48a motion.

Henderson corrects her earlier quote was Henry David Thoreau not Ezra Pound. LOL.

Good answer by Wall. DOJ wasn't vocal at the panel about removing Sullivan but now his subsequent actions have lead DOJ to believe Sullivan is biased.

ETA: The brief filed by Sullivan on the petition for rehearing showed he had already decided a large part of what the law was a view of the law that DOJ rejects.

They operate off a political ideology with preconceptions, and they try to back their way into rationalizing preconceptions with law if they can. They have a good idea where they want to end up in the back of their minds going in, and they pretty much engage in the process of building a plausible path there, hence the seemingly nonsensical lines of questioning at times. They're building a rationalization a bit at a time, constrained by Both ideology and the law to the extent that they must plausibly follow it in some interpretation. It's the way humans tend to think and reason so it's not surprising. We are all susceptible to it.

aggiehawg said:

---

Good answer by Wall. DOJ wasn't vocal at the panel about removing Sullivan but now his subsequent actions have lead DOJ to believe Sullivan is biased.

ETA: The brief filed by Sullivan on the petition for rehearing showed he had already decided a large part of what the law was a view of the law that DOJ rejects.

---

What is the best possible outcome for Gen Flynn here?

Will they remove Sullivan and give it to another judge or grant the writ of mandamus and order the case dismissed again?

I am not sure.....

There's a comedian named Durwood Fincher, whose known as "the king of doublespeak".

This hearing reminds that all 11 judges must have listened to Fincher last night.

The process itself is the Constitutional harm. Good point by Wall.

Garland again arguing about the DC Circuit's ability to grant a rehearing sua sponte. But that didn't happen here.

It's hard to see what they will actually do until they rule and explain themselves. You can get lines of questioning that don't materialize in the outcome at times because they eliminate rather than reinforce a possible outcome, but with ideology so dominant with progressive judges it is not so difficult to see what is attempting to be rationalized because they are tightly constrained between ideology and law and it makes them more predictable I should say.

How are the judges proposing that they could even move forward without a prosecutor?

Judge Griffith back to meaning of "leave of court" in rule 48a.

Wall is making the point that a federal judge can't order DOJ to prosecute someone under separation of powers.

Judge Millett is stupid. A federal district court judge can sanction a lawyer before or after a case is dismissed for misconduct in the that court.

Here we go again with bimbo Millett, but she is at least slightly more cordial/respectful toward Wall. Now she's piling back onto Wilkins hypothetical...

Well, nevermind, now she is full on rude again, and asking a ridiculous question about inquiring about lies to the court under 48a, and Wall bats it away as is appropriate that the court can hold an attorney in contempt/sanction an attorney before or after. (He's right but she claims his answer means it is unsettled).