CyclingAg82 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

Seems like both courts are interested in kicking this down the road to after the election. Flynn may never go free. If Biden wins Sullivan will ignore and prosecute.

---

Just the problem. Sullivan cannot prosecute, that's a separation of powers issue that he seems intent on flouting.

---

Which is why I think Chief Justice Roberts (who supervises the DC Circuit) should step in and squash this nonsense.

For our legal eagles, does he have the ability to step in and correct this abuse of the legal system.

---

Probably does. Probably won't.

whatthehey78 said:

---

CyclingAg82 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

Seems like both courts are interested in kicking this down the road to after the election. Flynn may never go free. If Biden wins Sullivan will ignore and prosecute.

---

Just the problem. Sullivan cannot prosecute, that's a separation of powers issue that he seems intent on flouting.

---

Which is why I think Chief Justice Roberts (who supervises the DC Circuit) should step in and squash this nonsense.

For our legal eagles, does he have the ability to step in and correct this abuse of the legal system.

---

Probably does. Probably won't.

---

Probably right.

CyclingAg82 said:

---

Whens lunch said:

---

WestAustinAg said:

---

Seems like both courts are interested in kicking this down the road to after the election. Flynn may never go free. If Biden wins Sullivan will ignore and prosecute.

---

Just the problem. Sullivan cannot prosecute, that's a separation of powers issue that he seems intent on flouting.

---

Which is why I think Chief Justice Roberts (who supervises the DC Circuit) should step in and squash this nonsense.

For our legal eagles, does he have the ability to step in and correct this abuse of the legal system.

---

I don't think I have ever seen a SCOTUS supervisory judge step in without a petition to do so by an aggrieved party. SCOTUS doesn't issue advisory opinions which is what that would be.

Professor Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection has a terse reaction to today's DC Circuit opinion.

Quote:

---

Short version: Take the procedural medicine Judge Sullivan wants to give you, then come back to us later.

---

No reason to link because that's really it.

Quote:

---

In November 2019 activist Federal District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson ruled former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress; however, she also ruled McGahn retained the ability to "invoke executive privilege where appropriate" during his appearance. The central issue is separation of power.

The White House appealed the ruling to the DC appellate court on constitutional grounds, and on February 28, 2020, a three judge panel from the DC circuit agreed with the White House position. The House of representatives could have appealed the decision; however, instead, the main lawfare activist, House counsel Doug Letter, took a different approach and sought to argue the case based around their right to enforce a subpoena.

---

Quote:

---

Today a politically divided DC appeals court panel ruled the House can't go to the judicial branch to enforce legislative subpoenas because there is no statute giving the legislative chamber the authority to force the executive branch to enforce an action against its own constitutional interests.

---

Quote:

---

The permanent political coup, led by the primary Lawfare activists who have infected the DOJ and all bodies politic, continues Everything is tenuous.

All of this judicial turmoil is a downstream result from electing Barack Obama to fundamentally transform America in 2008. Where we are today can be traced to the continuum that many warned about more than a decade ago.

---

Sundance at LINK

I love the idea of replacing judges with little respect for the law, assuming I knew what that was on each occasion!! Growing up, my dad was always conscious of judges, and knew what was going on, but I never heard him suggest that Dem appointed judges would just casually cast settled law aside, which seems to be the case today. I could still handle that, if it weren't for the frickin' precedent this sets.

The above was a very long winded attempt to say attorneys don't accrue these beliefs after entering their jobs, or service of judgeship, they likely get them from their law education. If so, how does the "other side" attack the lack of "social justice" in our current law, which shouldn't be there to start with, and help our law schools reacquire written law? Or being very cynical, how does law education go to law practice--literally?

What say you?

Go back to this style of teaching. I'm serious.

Wow, Trump's federal judge sister has been blocked by twitter. The one that was going off the other day.

Not sure if it was really her tweeting.

aggiehawg said:

---

Garrelli 5000 said:

---

Am I correct that the "best case scenario" at this point for Flynn would be for Sullivan to actually move quickly and grant the DOJ's request to withdraw charges. Effectively saying "I was going to do this all along but you wouldn't let me finish my planned process."

I've seen nothing from Sullivan that indicates this is what he'll do and I believe this ultimately has to go to appeal. Sullivan can sleep at night because he did his part and whatever is being held over his head remains hidden.

---

Best case is Sullivan to enter a minute order today scheduling a hearing on the MTD later this week or early next week. Hold that hearing and dismiss it with an opinion to follow (or he's already writing his opinion).

The old judge Sullivan would have been outraged that his court had been deceived by the prosecution and would have ended the case rapidly. That judge is gone. Now he's partisan and political and is wielding his bench and the powers emanating therefrom as a cudgel to rain blows on Flynn's head.

Disgraceful behavior by any judge. By a judge who did have a good reputation as a great jurist? Inexplicable.

---

Well considering that Flynn pled guilty to fake charges to protect his son, the question may be what is sullivan protecting his son from?

Secolobo said:

---

Wow, Trump's federal judge sister has been blocked by twitter. The one that was going off the other day.

---

Any interest in buying the Fred Hartman bridge? I can get you a deal

will25u said:

---

---

Not sure what this means

captkirk said:

---

will25u said:

---

---

Not sure what this means

---

Sidney is on fire tonight. Lots of tweets.

Somebody is feeding Sidney info. Sounds like something Flynn would know and Sidney is researching past articles and indictments.

drcrinum said:

---

---

nothing political going on here!

Status report?!?!. Weren't they fairly close to the original hearing date? Status report is nothing but a delay. Another to add to the PoS list.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Status report?!?!. We're they Fairly close to the original hearing date? Status report is nothing but a delay. Another to add to the PoS list.

---

Not only that but he's bringing all of those amicus briefs back into play again because that wimpy DC Circuit opinion gave him too much latitude.

Does anyone still think Sullivan is inclined in the slightest to grant the motion to dismiss? Because if he were he'd just schedule a hearing and not bring all of this superfluous bullcrap before his court. The term "and the kitchen sink" comes to mind, he's flinging so much.

So Flynn stays in limbo until after the election with no recourse? How is this a fair and speedy trial?

akm91 said:

---

So Flynn stays in limbo until after the election with no recourse? How is this a fair and speedy trial?

---

He already waived that.

But for those judges that asserted that the representations of his counsel were sufficient for them to have faith Sullivan wouldn't go off of the rails again should be embarrassed. They were suckered.

akm91 said:

---

So Flynn stays in limbo until after the election with no recourse? How is this a fair and speedy trial?

---

Also what if the election isn't settled for months...I would hope Trump could issue the pardon while everything is sorted out to avoid risking Flynn to Biden and whatever further shenanigans they would try to pull.

This is such a travesty of justice in so many ways starting with that POS Comey running corrupt agents at him while the Trump team was still settling in and getting acclimated.

Or they are in cahoots. There's nothing the DOJ nor Sydney can do?

Random question: y'all have been updating the thread with legal opinions that align with most of our conservative views on this Flynn nonsense. Are there actual legal pros who think what has happened is the right way the case should be unfolding? Or is it all anti Trump bias?

akm91 said:

---

Or they are in cahoots. There's nothing the DOJ nor Sydney can do?

---

I wouldn't say nothing but it becomes a question of the timing and further delays. There is a slight chance that this new order pisses off enough judges that they revote and yank back yesterday's decision. They can theoretically do so for 21 days before it becomes final.

Do you think the DOJ should go back and file a writ of mandamus with respect to the amicus? Or has that ship sailed?

redline248 said:

---

Random question: y'all have been updating the thread with legal opinions that align with most of our conservative views on this Flynn nonsense. Are there actual legal pros who think what has happened is the right way the case should be unfolding? Or is it all anti Trump bias?

---

The issues here are procedural and not substantive. And the case became procedurally messed up by the actions of Judge Sullivan.

So, purely on a technicality the decision is defensible.

Under the totality of the circumstances though, including the separation of powers Constitutional issue (which they sidestepped by only focusing on the procedure) it is a bad precedent. Bad facts make bad case law. And the circuit court placed too much confidence in Sullivan's integrity.

By the entry of this order they have been disabused of the notion, I hope. Judges Henderson and Rao are saying, "We told you so!"

TRM said:

---

Do you think the DOJ should go back and file a writ of mandamus with respect to the amicus? Or has that ship sailed?

---

Again it is a matter of timing and delay. File another writ and we go through another 6-8 week briefing schedule, oral arguments and then another decision. Months.

Appeal to SCOTUS for an emergency stay? SCOTUS might consider granting it.

Or just power through Sullivan's procedural ego trip?

aggiehawg said:

---

TRM said:

---

Do you think the DOJ should go back and file a writ of mandamus with respect to the amicus? Or has that ship sailed?

---

Again it is a matter of timing and delay. File another writ and we go through another 6-8 week briefing schedule, oral arguments and then another decision. Months.

Appeal to SCOTUS for an emergency stay? SCOTUS might consider granting it.

Or just power through Sullivan's procedural ego trip?

---

Crazy idea...

What would Sullivan do if the US Attorneys withdrew and Barr refused to name anyone to take their place.