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.

---

Awesome, I've been offline for the past 15-20. Glad to hear Millett is harassing Wilkinson too. She's really quite the embodiment of 'obnoxious' as I've heard her today.

Wilkinson is not admitting that Sullivan's orders were sua sponte.

aggiehawg said:

---

Wilkinson is not admitting that Sullivan's orders were sua sponte.

---

lol....right

which party moved the court? Oh right, a non-party, the judge.

Total clown show, but it is 2020.

Sidney did a good job in her two minute rebuttal.

Now Wall is suggested the DOJ feels they have been roped-a doped by what Wilkinson has said today in contravention of what her brief said and what the arguments before the panel were.

adjourned

Court adjourned.

Adjourned until Wednesday, December 9th? When can we expect a ruling?

For those of us (me) that don't fully understand all of this, what is the likely outcome of all this at the end of the day?

Rockdoc said:

---

For those of us (me) that don't fully understand all of this, what is the likely outcome of all this at the end of the day?

---

Delay some more.

So much for speedy.

aggiehawg said:

---

Sidney did a good job in her two minute rebuttal.

Now Wall is suggested the DOJ feels they have been roped-a doped by what Wilkinson has said today in contravention of what her brief said and what the arguments before the panel were.

---

Sorry I missed that; what was the difference/assertion?

Pinche Abogado said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Wilkinson is not admitting that Sullivan's orders were sua sponte.

---

lol....right

which party moved the court? Oh right, a non-party, the judge.

Total clown show, but it is 2020.

---

Actually I was referring to the two amicus orders. The first asking anyone who was interested to file for leave of court to file an amicus. Sidney screamed bloody murder on that one, bringing up separation of powers. Then Sullivan out of the blue sua sponte appoints Gleeson as the sole amici with directions to comment on contempt of court questions against Flynn, right after Gleeson had publicly expressed his own disdain and contempt against Flynn personally.

Wilkinson was trying (rather unsuccessfully in my view) to argue that the proper course would have been a motion for reconsideration directed towards Sullivan. But when the judge is raising these false issues on his own, why even file a motion to reconsider what was clearly an improper order?

And Wall came back to that in his rebuttal. Sullivan was out of bounds and DOJ had to react what his orders said he was going to do, process wise and Wilkinson now coming in and saying he wasn't going to do any of that after all was disingenuous at best. A don't-believe-what-Sullivan-said-then-believe-what-I-say-now.

Tailgate88 said:

---

Adjourned until Wednesday, December 9th? When can we expect a ruling?

---

this is so ****ing stupid. where are the adults?

nortex97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Sidney did a good job in her two minute rebuttal.

Now Wall is suggested the DOJ feels they have been roped-a doped by what Wilkinson has said today in contravention of what her brief said and what the arguments before the panel were.

---

Sorry I missed that; what was the difference/assertion?

---

I kind of explained in the post I just made. Wilkinson was attempting to tell the court that Sullivan had no intentions of taking evidence, or requiring additional affidavits from DOJ at his hearing. Of course then she backtracked saying she couldn't predict the future or how the hearings would unfold.

So Wall went the rope-a-dope argument saying DOJ was relying on what Sullivan actually said but Wilkinson was now doing an Emily Littella never mind what he said, listen to me, but don't hold me to it.

Ridiculous.

So....was ANYTHING accomplished by these "so called" distingushed Judges, i.e., legal experts? Is this case and/or "the law" so ambiguous/indiscernible that the almighty, learned scholars can't adjudicate it?

Don't know if the above makes sense...but, I think you get the gist of my query. I can't fathom how this case can be this screwed up????? Are these people getting paid real money for this level of so-called professionalism? Either a law was broken OR it wasn't.



Rant over.....maybe.

seriously...what is the point in all of this when even the judges know (but may not admit as much) they're full of *****

whatthehey78 said:

---

So....was ANYTHING accomplished by these "so called" distingushed Judges, i.e., legal experts? Is this case and/or "the law" so ambiguous/indiscernible that the almighty, learned scholars can't adjudicate it?

Don't know if the above makes sense...but, I think you get the gist of my query. I can't fathom how this case can be this screwed up????? Are these people getting paid real money for this level of so-called professionalism? Either a law was broken OR it wasn't.



Rant over.....maybe.

---

About the only thing accomplished today was that Flynn's legal bills just went up by several grand.

whatthehey78 said:

---

So....was ANYTHING accomplished by these "so called" distingushed Judges, i.e., legal experts? Is this case and/or "the law" so ambiguous/indiscernible that the almighty, learned scholars can't adjudicate it?

Don't know if the above makes sense...but, I think you get the gist of my query. I can't fathom how this case can be this screwed up????? Are these people getting paid real money for this level of so-called professionalism? Either a law was broken OR it wasn't.



Rant over.....maybe.

---

Its never just about the letter of the law. I could tell years ago that in the face of insurmountable evidence of corruption, corruption would win again.

where is the recourse for this nonsense?

whatthehey78 said:

---

So....was ANYTHING accomplished by these "so called" distingushed Judges, i.e., legal experts? Is this case and/or "the law" so ambiguous/indiscernible that the almighty, learned scholars can't adjudicate it?

Don't know if the above makes sense...but, I think you get the gist of my query. I can't fathom how this case can be this screwed up????? Are these people getting paid real money for this level of so-called professionalism? Either a law was broken OR it wasn't.



Rant over.....maybe.

---

There are thousands of these judges. My eyes have been opened during this process. I simply no longer trust the judiciary to follow the constitution.

ruddyduck said:

---

where is the recourse for this nonsense?

---

My question too.

WTF can be done about this?

The Clinton's have a pretty effective method of keeping judges/attorneys off their backs....

IF anyone wants a play by play...

ruddyduck said:

---

where is the recourse for this nonsense?

---

There isn't much available, unfortunately.

Now we wait for the en banc decision along with concurrences and likely dissents.

But today was largely a sham. Those hypotheticals were beyond the pale, except for one that was directed to Wilkinson, by Rao, if I'm not mistaken. She posited what if the DOJ got DNA evidence that a convicted and incarcerated defendant was exonerated, would it be fair for a federal district court judge to order a hearing after a briefing schedule for a ruling 7 weeks later?

Wilkinson tried to argue that Flynn was free as a bird (yes, she used that phrase) under his custodial arrangement and thus was suffering no harm. And then she added something that was quite weird, saying such delays with incarcerated innocent people which the DOJ wants to reverse the verdict "happen every day in federal court."

I was amazed that Wilkinson tried to paint a picture of no harm to Flynn because he could practically go where he pleases. She was so dismissive. I don't recall the judge asking the question at the time, but at least that judge understood that it is infringing on his liberties even if for a single day of it.

RulesForTheNotForMe said:

---

The Clinton's have a pretty effective method of keeping judges/attorneys off their backs....

---

Bet Gen. Flynn wishes he could return to his role in the US Army and bring hellfire on the Justice System.

Here is what Leslie McAdoo thinks will happen.

So I am lost in all this talk. What happens next if they don't issue the writ?

4stringAg said:

---

So I am lost in all this talk. What happens next if they don't issue the writ?

---

Back to Judge Sullivans 3 ringed circus, to do just about whatever he pleases.

What a travesty. All of this over what amounts to a alleged process crime of lying to the FBI.

So if this goes back to Sullivan, who is the prosecutor?

will25u said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

So I am lost in all this talk. What happens next if they don't issue the writ?

---

Back to Judge Sullivans 3 ringed circus, to do just about whatever he pleases.

---

I think it is most likely that the majority is written by the chief judge (srinivasan). If so, I think it is likely he punts on most issues and remands the case to a different trial judge. None of the judges really want this, it's an obstacle to their SCOTUS hopes.

If another judge gets it, it's over in late September or early October.