Tough crowd, Stalkofta.

hmmmm

aggiehawg said:

---

JJMt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

NOT RED! Change your post!

---

Red as in commie red, not Republican red?

---

Wrong context.

---

maybe we should do away with the colors since the media switched everything around and just say what we mean, whether it be lib socialist commie or bsc

ruddyduck said:

---

hmmmm

---

not only following the money but hitting them where it hurts. When does HK lose their financial status or is this part of that?

Quote:

---

Robert Barnes: "I'll Give You a Little Secret.... Judge Sullivan Is As Dumb as a Pile of Bricks"

This guy posts as Barnes Law on Twitter. I believe he represents some of the parents and students of Covington in their defamation cases, but not Nick Sandmann.

I only specify that because I have previously misidentified him as Sandmann's lawyer.

Anyway:

Barnes says it's "widely known" that Sullivan is "dumb as a pile of bricks," and also widely known that he is almost entirely dependent on his clerks to do his work for him -- which is the reason, Barnes speculates, that he was so absurdly stupid in accusing Flynn of treason. He is dumb, does not read the cases, and barely skimmed the case, and therefore thought that Flynn was somehow implicated in treason.

He noted that the Supreme Court just ruled on the maneuver he is attempting, that is, summoning amicus filings in a criminal case. The Supreme Court said "no." Sullivan ignored that, either because he's ignorant as ****, or didn't read the briefing his clerks had written up for him, or because he's so ****ing partisan he doesn't care what the law is.

---

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=387491

captkirk said:

---

Quote:

---

Robert Barnes: "I'll Give You a Little Secret.... Judge Sullivan Is As Dumb as a Pile of Bricks"

This guy posts as Barnes Law on Twitter. I believe he represents some of the parents and students of Covington in their defamation cases, but not Nick Sandmann.

I only specify that because I have previously misidentified him as Sandmann's lawyer.

Anyway:

Barnes says it's "widely known" that Sullivan is "dumb as a pile of bricks," and also widely known that he is almost entirely dependent on his clerks to do his work for him -- which is the reason, Barnes speculates, that he was so absurdly stupid in accusing Flynn of treason. He is dumb, does not read the cases, and barely skimmed the case, and therefore thought that Flynn was somehow implicated in treason.

He noted that the Supreme Court just ruled on the maneuver he is attempting, that is, summoning amicus filings in a criminal case. The Supreme Court said "no." Sullivan ignored that, either because he's ignorant as ****, or didn't read the briefing his clerks had written up for him, or because he's so ****ing partisan he doesn't care what the law is.

---

http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=387491

---

called it.

And Schumer has the temerity to call Trump's judge appointments "politicians in robes."

EKUAg said:

---

JJMt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

NOT RED! Change your post!

---

Red as in commie red, not Republican red?

---

Let's get the colors back where they were when Reagan got elected the first time. Republicans were blue and the Dems were red. Press changed it at the request of the Dems due to the public tying them to the communists. Go figure.

---

Really? I wasn't old enough to vote during Reagan's presidency.

Here was NBC's map.

So on Twitter I have been seeing more and more people thinking that Rosenstein is going to break everything open on the 3rd. And then on the 4th, Lindsey Graham gets his vote for subpoenas.

Papa is saying this, Brian Cates has stuck to his guns in this.

The timing of Resenstein and then the vote in the 4th seems to line up perfectly for it to happen.

What's everyone's thoughts?

Here's a question for ya, and it's probably a little touchy on the fringes due to Minnieapolis.

IF what Barnes is saying is correct, do you, or any of the other legals here think that jurists cover for other jurists when it's politically expedient. Now, the Florida congressman (forgot his name) was a judge, and was impeached, and is now a congressman. He got caught, for whatever it was he did, and his skin isn't white.

I'd love to think either incompetence, legal shenanigans, or general bad behavior is treated the same in the judge industry (sorry that's what I'm going to call it).

I've never thought about it until now, but Barnes sounds like Sullivan is WELL known in that industry as a poor judge. If so, it would make sense he was put on this case after Contreras was recused (got it right that time).

Like every industry, those in the industry generally know which of their competitors are good, and which ones make money, but are generally crappy people, professionally speaking.

You were on top of this, but I wondered how many more out there are "safe" due to politics?

Wendy 1990 said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

JJMt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

NOT RED! Change your post!

---

Red as in commie red, not Republican red?

---

Let's get the colors back where they were when Reagan got elected the first time. Republicans were blue and the Dems were red. Press changed it at the request of the Dems due to the public tying them to the communists. Go figure.

---

Really? I wasn't old enough to vote during Reagan's presidency.

---

Even in 2000, some networks had the GOP blue and some had it red. 2004 was when they all had the GOP red.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Wendy 1990 said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

JJMt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

NOT RED! Change your post!

---

Red as in commie red, not Republican red?

---

Let's get the colors back where they were when Reagan got elected the first time. Republicans were blue and the Dems were red. Press changed it at the request of the Dems due to the public tying them to the communists. Go figure.

---

Really? I wasn't old enough to vote during Reagan's presidency.

---

Even in 2000, some networks had the GOP blue and some had it red. 2004 was when they all had the GOP red.

---

That's not how I recall it. I went back and looked at the election night maps in 2000 on YouTube for NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews. All of them had GOP red and Democrat s blue. The only map I could find that had the colors reversed in the images on the web for the 2000 election returns was the Washington Post.

Ulysses90 said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Wendy 1990 said:

---

EKUAg said:

---

JJMt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

NOT RED! Change your post!

---

Red as in commie red, not Republican red?

---

Let's get the colors back where they were when Reagan got elected the first time. Republicans were blue and the Dems were red. Press changed it at the request of the Dems due to the public tying them to the communists. Go figure.

---

Really? I wasn't old enough to vote during Reagan's presidency.

---

Even in 2000, some networks had the GOP blue and some had it red. 2004 was when they all had the GOP red.

---

That's not how I recall it. I went back and looked at the election night maps in 2000 on YouTube for NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews. All of them had GOP red and Democrat s blue. The only map I could find that had the colors reversed in the images on the web for the 2000 election returns was the Washington Post.

---

Maybe that was the first year they were as they currently are. I remember thinking about it on the way home from judging the count that night while I was listening to them try to make sense of the Florida mess.

Doing a quick look back, CBS and ABC both had Repubs as red and Dems blue in 1984. NBC still had Dems red. Can't tell when NBC made the switch.

Wait. So he requested amicus filings, but will only allow the one he hand selected to submit?

I'm largely ignorant of the legal system, so explain further.

But What McCord did isn't illegal right? Dirty and underhanded as hell but not illegal?

Wildcat said:

---

Wait. So he requested amicus filings, but will only allow the one he hand selected to submit?

I'm largely ignorant of the legal system, so explain further.

---

He's trying to do some clean-up of the mess he created. It won't work unless he rescinds all of his previous amicus orders since the time of the filing of the DOJ's motion to dismiss.

akm91 said:

---

But What McCord did isn't illegal right? Dirty and underhanded as hell but not illegal?

---

Not following you. What did McCord do?

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

But What McCord did isn't illegal right? Dirty and underhanded as hell but not illegal?

---

Not following you. What did McCord do?

---

I meant McCabe, not McCord. Need a 2nd cup of joe already.

aggiehawg said:

---

Wildcat said:

---

Wait. So he requested amicus filings, but will only allow the one he hand selected to submit?

I'm largely ignorant of the legal system, so explain further.

---

He's trying to do some clean-up of the mess he created. It won't work unless he rescinds all of his previous amicus orders since the time of the filing of the DOJ's motion to dismiss.

---

Judge Sullivan didn't accept the amicus brief from the lawyers saying that there was political bias from the DOJ, correct? He said he would open in up to amicus briefs at some point in the future.

will25u said:

---

So on Twitter I have been seeing more and more people thinking that Rosenstein is going to break everything open on the 3rd. And then on the 4th, Lindsey Graham gets his vote for subpoenas.

Papa is saying this, Brian Cates has stuck to his guns in this.

The timing of Resenstein and then the vote in the 4th seems to line up perfectly for it to happen.

What's everyone's thoughts?

---

I posted a few days ago about rosenstein, right after the 25th Amendment story came out and appeared to be true, was on a Friday night flight to Miralago with Trump and I have always speculated that Trump's legal team was there and read rosenstein the riot act and that since then rosenstein has done everything Barr wanted him to until his "retirement". It has made me believe that rosenstein is likely a cooperating witness, especially after seeing his memos.

I hate to get my hopes up again, but it would make a much better story for rosenstein to admit what has gone on to congress rather than have "Trump's flunky" Barr and Durham breaking it with indictments. Would be very hard for the press to ignore that or downplay it as purely partisan.

I doubt that is how it plays out - more likely to be a bunch of "I don't remember" and "I can't answer that in this setting" type of crap. But sooner or later, one of these scumbags is going to turn (most likely several already have). I've always suspected clapper would be easy to flip for a deal and rosenstein seems like he would be, too.

akm91 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

akm91 said:

---

But What McCord did isn't illegal right? Dirty and underhanded as hell but not illegal?

---

Not following you. What did McCord do?

---

I meant McCabe, not McCord. Need a 2nd cup of joe already.

---

Oh. It looks like McCabe deliberately lied to Pence with the goal of getting him fired. I suppose the summaries, since they are government records, there could be a charge of tampering with them if the actual transcripts say otherwise.

On the civil side, gives another boost to a possible civil suit by Flynn against McCabe individually.