Mueller dismisses top FBI agent in Russia probe for anti-Trump texts

7,775,993 Views | 49465 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by Ellis Wyatt
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Really wish DOJ had gone ahead and filed either their own petition for a writ of mandamus or joined with Powell. Would have been cleaner procedurally.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pillard is grossly mischaracterizing what happened at Flynn's colloquy hearing.
Secolobo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You can hear it in her voice she doesn't believe what she is saying. She's defending talking points given to her...
scottimus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Shut her down there!
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jeebus! Wilkins with the same dumb hypothetical again. My god this man has tunnel vision.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Now Wilkins has the Attorney General taking a bribe!
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yep. At least he's not race-baiting today (yet), but instead he's implying the US Attorney (or in this case the AG), is being 'bribed' politically to favor the president's friend/ally. But again it just...doesn't matter. At all.

Under 48a under Fokker the court still has to grant the motion and dismiss; they can't ever get to sentencing.
scottimus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Surprised he didn't say the "President"
CyclingAg82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Now Wilkins has the Attorney General taking a bribe!
He is certainly has blinders on.....

This guy and his line of questioning is like "a Martian talking to fungo" - Bull Durham.
Tailgate88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Following this thread and even understanding only about 50% of it, I am not left with a warm fuzzy feeling about the competency of the federal judiciary.
Aggie Jurist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Following this thread and even understanding only about 50% of it, I am not left with a warm fuzzy feeling about the competency of the federal judiciary.
Elections have consequences. Obama appointed judges are reliably partisan.
LGB
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tailgate88 said:

Following this thread and even understanding only about 50% of it, I am not left with a warm fuzzy feeling about the competency of the federal judiciary.
You shouldn't have one. They are horrible for the most part today.
CyclingAg82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good question by Rao on why the DoJ didn't file a separate writ of mandamus.

Wall with a good answer, but I think DoJ should have joined Powell/Flynn or filed writ separately.


Although I am uncertain about the constitutional ramifications.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
If X would have happened, then Y ...

Yeah, but the facts are that X didn't happen.

Yes, but if X would have happened...

Let's rule on an actual case based on a hypothetical?
CyclingAg82
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Tailgate88 said:

Following this thread and even understanding only about 50% of it, I am not left with a warm fuzzy feeling about the competency of the federal judiciary.
You shouldn't have one. They are horrible for the most part today.
They are biased in my opinion and not considering the law before them, clear as it may be in my amateur eyes.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Now Garland is going off course with dumb hypotheticals. And of course doing some Trump bashing in the process.

ETA: Hey Garland! War damn turtle says, "Hello!"

Jeff84
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is not the difference that Garland is talking about with Congress and spending and this case the fact that one is criminal and involving due process of an individual versus the executive branch deciding with executive order where to spend money?
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jeff84 said:

Is not the difference that Garland is talking about with Congress and spending and this case the fact that one is criminal and involving due process of an individual versus the executive branch deciding with executive order where to spend money?
Why it was a dumb hypothetical.
fasthorse05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie Jurist said:

Quote:

Following this thread and even understanding only about 50% of it, I am not left with a warm fuzzy feeling about the competency of the federal judiciary.
Elections have consequences. Obama appointed judges are reliably partisan.
Your opinion is more valid than mine, but ANY judge that graduated law school since 1990 appears to have been subjected to massive amounts of "hypotheticals", and finding diamonds in the legal rough where it has NEVER existed.

So, any judge chosen by a Dem seems to be conditioned to be reliably partisan, even some of the conservative judges--see Roberts and Souter.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Tailgate88 said:

Following this thread and even understanding only about 50% of it, I am not left with a warm fuzzy feeling about the competency of the federal judiciary.
Obama managed to put a truly cancerous amount of borderline illiterate people on the bench, and today it's worth reminding folks that the DC Circuit is why Reid got rid of the filibuster for judges. He packed the DC circuit with dumb political/partisans knowing it would benefit his over-reach, and hopefully his successor for many years.

The exception, Srinivasan is actually, ok, and I am not sure how/why he managed to be picked.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Millett still going to a fake hypothetical of the bribe taking place in front of the judge in the courtroom!

Good grief!
whatthehey78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
captkirk said:

F the "rules". Justice needs to be served and faith in these institutions needs to be restored.
AMEN!!!!!
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hearing Garland's nonsense this morning just reiterates that Cocaine Mitch did the right thing keeping that guy off the SC.
Secolobo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Government is the bad guy now but not when they don't turn over brady evidence...
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wilkinson up now.

Saying the government's rememdy is not to answer the judge's questions about their deliberations. Not the way that works, dear.
akm91
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Obama managed to put a truly cancerous amount of borderline illiterate people on the bench, and today it's worth reminding folks that the DC Circuit is why Reid got rid of the filibuster for judges. He packed the DC circuit with dumb political/partisans knowing it would benefit his over-reach, and hopefully his successor for many years.
Trump and McConnell are doing their best to reverse damage done by Obama.
whatthehey78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
akm91 said:

Quote:

Obama managed to put a truly cancerous amount of borderline illiterate people on the bench, and today it's worth reminding folks that the DC Circuit is why Reid got rid of the filibuster for judges. He packed the DC circuit with dumb political/partisans knowing it would benefit his over-reach, and hopefully his successor for many years.
Trump and McConnell are doing their best to reverse damage done by Obama.
Apparently they've 'a long ways to go'.
B2Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Audio troubles, lol. Hopefully everyone knows we can still hear them publicly.
B2Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Judges still on. Wilkinson unavailable.

Can't wait to get past all this dial-in BS post-CV
B2Ag05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Everything sounds like it's back on track.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wilkinson just stepped into it. She admitted that mandamus was proper when a judge does something improper in the order that set a hearing. That's the entire amicus question.
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Wilkinson just stepped into it. She admitted that mandamus was proper when a judge does something improper in the order that set a hearing. That's the entire amicus question.
Oops.
RulesForTheeNotForMe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Keeping up a lie for a long time is very hard... The truth almost always comes out.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wilkinson is arguing against the circuit court giving any guidance or instruction as to how Sullivan proceeds with a hearing but she won't say what Sullivan would do.
RiskManager93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wilkinson's repeated assertion that there is "nothing in the record to suggest" Sullivan remains unbiased makes me want to eat glass.

He accused the general of betraying his country, suggested he could be charged with treason, and told Flynn, "You sold your country out" in open court.
First Page Last Page
Page 1211 of 1414
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.