Audio for tomorrow.

/sorry, older article. thought it was updated with new info./

Thread.

I posted the first tweet, and then the tweets with the letter that Ron Johnson wrote. He tried to voluntarily get people to testify. But now has had to resort to subpoenas. I didn't read the whole letter, but he is trying to find out more information on SpyGate.

Popcorn .gif

Leslie writing again about the Flynn hearing tomorrow. Still writing currently.

Following their book of accusing the opponent of doing what they have already done.

F the "rules". Justice needs to be served and faith in these institutions needs to be restored.

will25u said:

---

---

Trump ended his presser with these comments yesterday.

Coincidence?

Here we go.

aggiehawg said:

---

Here we go.

---

Sidney is bringing the lumber......

Srinivasan / Powell discussing the 48A motion.

I am not lawyer and I find this fascinating.

Henderson (author of the panel's decisions) has declined to ask any questions.

aggiehawg said:

---

Here we go.

---

Looking forward to your and the other legal eagles analysis.

aggiehawg said:

---

Henderson (author of the panel's decisions) has declined to ask any questions.

---

I am wondering if Henderson declined because this circus has gone on long enough?

Judge Rogers is asking questions now. She's concerned about the procedural issues in mandamus but is ignoring the separation of powers argument.

Sidney just sited Ginsburg's opinion.

Merrick Garland asking now. He's going to the separation of powers but again pooh-poohs it because Sullivan hasn't ruled on the DOJ's motion yet. Focusing on a appeal as the appropriate remedy as opposed to mandamus.

Merrick Garland trying to get Sidney to agree the court has to make a decision. She refused, points out sullivan declined motion to dismiss and to their opposition to amicas; she pointed out that they requested dismissal, and she failed to point out to the panel that he in effect did make a ruling, and as a criminal case, rights are to benefit defendant.

He points out dismissal of erroneous decisions would be an appeal not mandamus. She points out the 'normal' way the cases go is when it involves legal issues, not sole authority of executive branch being the one to prosecute (48a).

It's amazing they seem (the Clinton-Obama judges) bound and determined to make a decision on mandamus being right/wrong, not Sullivan's actions.

Judge Griffith up. What is the role of leave of court, is it ministerial? or not? Judge is not a rubber stamp and should have a hearing under that language is his issue.

Sidney counters that holding a hearing is not what Sullivan has done with the appointment of Gleeson.

nortex97 said:

---

Merrick Garland trying to get Sidney to agree the court has to make a decision. She refused, points out sullivan declined motion to dismiss and to their opposition to amicas; she pointed out that they requested dismissal, and she failed to point out to the panel that he in effect did make a ruling, and as a criminal case, rights are to benefit defendant.

He points out dismissal of erroneous decisions would be an appeal not mandamus. She points out the 'normal' way the cases go is when it involves legal issues, not sole authority of executive branch being the one to prosecute (48a).

It's amazing they seem (the Clinton-Obama judges) bound and determined to make a decision on mandamus being right/wrong, not Sullivan's actions.

---

Agree.

I know its hard with the Supreme Court to know which way a judge is leaning based upon their questions because they play "devil's advocate" a lot or test their position.

Is it the same here? we really won't know what they are thinking until the ruling?

Judge Smollett is claiming that Sidney didn't object on separation of powers specifically towards the appointment of Gleeson. Like that is supposed to really make a difference.

It's less difficult imho at the appeals court level. Today, though, it's pretty transparent that the questions from the Obama judges in particular, especially Millett here. She's basically behaving in a nasty manner to shut Sidney up, and prevent her from answering, a la House committee.

aggiehawg said:

---

Judge Smollett is claiming that Sidney didn't object on separation of powers specifically towards the appointment of Gleeson. Like that is supposed to really make a difference.

---

I have had judges ask probing questions and clarifying questions, but this seems more aggressive and biased?

Am I wrong?

Yep, she has been given her talking points.

Would it be wrong for Sidney to "reclaim her time"?

Missed the name of this judge here.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Judge Smollett is claiming that Sidney didn't object on separation of powers specifically towards the appointment of Gleeson. Like that is supposed to really make a difference.

---

I have had judges ask probing questions and clarifying questions, but this seems more aggressive and biased?

Am I wrong?

---

They usually do allow the lawyer to answer before interrupting them. These judges are already onto to their next question before she's allowed to answer.

It's again depressing how stupid the Obama judges are, and this one, Pillard, was a tenured Georgetown law prof. before this appointment.

Jeez this judge is stupid.