Posted on 06/01/2020 8:50:37 AM PDT by weston
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15exlPAA3U&feature=youtu.be
The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
Friday, June 12, 2020 9:30 A.M. USCA (Live-streaming)
Judges Henderson, Wilkins, Rao
Case no:20-5143 In re: Michael Flynn (15 minutes per side)
For more information, please visit: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/interne....
Hidden blessing for you and your hubby, hoosiermama...
When the rebuilding is behind you, you two will now have a vehicle for you to spend the winter in a warm climate. (Thinking ahead.)
Been listening to some of it. Stupid questions. Very irritating.
In my liberal area, the first time since I moved here seeing so my flags everywhere. Even Downtown Mountainview is decorated with flags everywhere.
That’s a good sign.
A group of Antifa ‘protesters’ were met with instant justice at the hands of angry residents in the suburban town of Yucaipa, California, located approximately 10 miles East of San Bernardino.
In a video posted to Twitter Tuesday afternoon, a large scuffle can be seen breaking out at an ARCO gas station while a man narrates:
“It ain’t goin’ good at all. They just beat the ever-loving snot out of three or four guys, and it’s goin’ again. God damn, the antifa guys are not doing well here – they’re all getting the shit kicked out of them.”
One of the protesters can be heard shouting “Justice for Floyd” – right before the man filming says “Uh, it’s goin’ bad. The antifa guys are being chased like crazy. Told you Yucaipa ain’t the place to be.”...part of the article.
A lot of flags were up throughout the Covid lockup. At least they have been up here that long up here in the Sierra.
https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1271442300632211457
Leslie McAdoo Gordon
Flynn Oral Argument: Live Tweet Thread.
Okay I’m going to try to live tweet the argument. I have never live tweeted anything, so this should be interesting.
....
Some definitions so I can cut down on typing strokes:
F = Flynn
S = Sullivan
D = DOJ
R = Judge Rao
W = Judge Wilkins /1
...
H = Judge Henderson
P = Sidney Powell (Flynn lawyer)
B = Beth Wilkinson (Sullivan lawyer)
J = Jeff Wall (DOJ lawyer)
CA = Court of Appeals
tc = trial court
R48 = Rule 48
sop = separation of powers
cfp = contempt for perjury
FK = Fokker
AM = Ammidown
RD = Rinaldi /2
....
loc = leave of court
SC = Supreme Court
DJT = President Trump
pi = public interest
G = Judge Gleeson
FP = Federal Practitioners amici (my group!)
WG = Watergate Prosecutors amici
ac = amici curiae
ab = amicus briefs
WY = Wayte
pd = prosecutorial discretion
oj = obstruction
/3
....
fs = false statement(s)
LA = Logan Act
caa = court appointed amicus
m = mandamus
plc = plea colloquy
plb = plea bargain
plg = plea agreement
soo = statement of offense
st = sentence/ing
h = hearing
SCO = Special Counsel’s Office
mtw = motion to w/draw
mtd = motion to dismiss
/4
....
Okay, so here we go. P comes out swinging. “impermissible intrusion” into Exec power. She’s talking about Jensen’s independence. /5
....
P calling it “judicial usurpation.” Ha!
....
W now asking about review in RD case, saying SC said there was a role of evaluation. P says no role in the circumstances in this case. Says presumption of regularity of govt’s determination controls.
....
W seems to think some role of review may be approved in RD. P talking about extraordinary steps here - appointed amicus. W pressing her. P saying court can’t make govt prosecute a case.
....
W bringing up another SC case - Thompson, which said it reviewed the record. P agrees, but says that means the record as it exists, not further developing record.
....
W now switches to whether m is appropriate. He’s really challenging her on FK now “not even a R48 case.” P switches to talking about Brady, prosecutorial misconduct, citing new SC case on amicus. She agrees S can review the record as it, but not bring in new stuff.
....
W says so why can’t this wait for the appeal. P says it’s just delaying the inevitable and takes an enormous toll on an individual defendant. Says it’s the most extensive mtd she’s seen in decades of practice. Citing Posner’s case now.
....
H now chimes in. Says S may rule on it next month. P says the problem is S is going beyond his authority to appoint G, etc. talking about 2nd Circuit overruling G in a case he handled in NY.
....
P saying it’s clear the goal is to push thru to sentencing as soon as possible and give F the maximum sentence. H pushing on why this is a m NOW.
....
W saying doesn’t understand how tr doesn’t have authority to hold hearings/etc. Fencing with P about trial judge. P properly focusing it on the judge can’t be the prosecutor or appoint someone to be the prosecutor. H skeptical that merely appointing G to present arguments . .
....
. . is outside trial court power. R now asking about appointing amicus to prosecute contempt. P points out that contempt isn’t available here for withdrawing his plea. Cites to our amicus as support!
....
R following up asking but can S appoint an amicus for it? P saying S doesn’t have the power to be the prosecutor, says there’s also no case or controversy left.
....
W comes in again on SC case about power to dismiss. P now talking about the facts, calling it an “appalling” case, and a “travesty.” W queries why S can’t review that. P says he can review the record as is, but can’t launch into other inquiries.
....
W now hammering again on whether m is appropriate, which order P is technically claiming needs to be mandamused.
....
H asking whether P would object to CA appointing amici like she objects to G. P says no the appellate process allows it, but it involves issues in the case, not issues that the CA itself is bringing up. Says S is ginning up his own issues, which is the problem.
....
P finally hits the point: S appointed G to be a “special prosecutor” in the case.
....
Now up - J on behalf of D. Talking first about m. Addressing H directly, saying the process playing out is harmful. Talking about RD, pointing out the facts & saying it leaves the standard open, but that is resolved in FK.
....
J telling H that FK that R48 analysis “central” to FK ruling. “No” oversight power. What is the point of further proceedings if FK requires the dismissal.
....
Glitch, so J got lost there for a second.
....
J says the point of S/G is to “investigate” the prosecutor’s decisions. W focusing on the literal words in S’s order. J says “we’re not here on appeal from an order.” BOOOM.
....
J pointing to G’s pleading and B’s pleading explaining what he says S is obviously going to do, which is not just what W wants to focus on. He says this particular appointed amicus. “We know the harms are going to play out.” He is slamming G’s pleading.
....
R asking J to be more specific on the concrete sop issues. Says the R48 does say “leave of court.” J concedes sop can be abstract, but here is “stark.” Here the district court is contemplating intensive “intrusion.” Says D is apparently going to have to put on evidence.
....
70 page “almost polemic” he calls G’s brief.
....
W pointing out all the cases says the tr has “some” role to look at the public interest. “As unfortunate as the sop clash might be” in a R48 case.
....
J saying for UNOPPOSED R48 motions, there is nothing for the court to resolve. “Key to the merits” is FK only applies to pre-plea situation. “Wrong for at least 4 reasons.” Ha!
....
“No magical plea line.” He’s hammering the sop argument now. “Their case on the merits collapses.” Only leaves whether the m is appropriate.
....
W now talking about how two judges accepted plea. J saying he disagrees that crossing the plea line suddenly invokes only the court not the executive powers. He’s giving the 7th Circuit (Posner) case as an example. Says the Rule 11 and R48 are not formal judicial actions.
Trump is planning to ban H-1B and other work visas
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3854833/posts
Trump’s proposed plan has two components:
1. Stop entry of H1B workers. Entry visas stamped into passports will be revoked. Workers already approved to start on October 1st may be locked out.
2. Change the process. Some highlights: - New $20,000 filing fee for each new H-1B - H-4 eliminated - Foreign spouses are no longer allowed to work in USA - OPT - only students in the top 5-15% of their class are eligible to work - Joint employment - Clients (e.g. Disney) will have to certify H1B applications from their Indian IT partner companies
This could start as soon as next week. Lawyers are recommending that H1B workers return to the USA immediately, because they may not be allowed back into the USA. On Twitter, Indian workers (vacationing in India) are complaining that all the flights back to the USA are filled.
Some federal folks have announced these details on conference calls with lawyer groups this week. The only question now is whether Trump will actually approve these plans.
>>>Trump is planning to ban H-1B and other work visas
If this happens, rent will drop here. My job hunt is going on. I may see results.
Friday, June 12, 2020
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll sponsored by Whatfinger News for Thursday shows that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-five percent (55%) disapprove.
Tonight, @ChrisCuomo criticized Trump’s economy while using data that stops in 2016.
This is complete incompetence.
Journalistically and editorially. pic.twitter.com/TxVpMTiNBJ— Frank Luntz (@FrankLuntz) June 12, 2020
Yikes. The fired State Dept IG was the subject of a full-blown investigation into a campaign of politicized targeting & leaking trying to take down the Trump admin's top official for imposing pressure on Iran. https://t.co/jkUKE3yf05— Omri Ceren (@omriceren) June 11, 2020
https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1271442300632211457
Leslie McAdoo Gordon
Flynn Oral Argument: Live Tweet Thread.
Okay I’m going to try to live tweet the argument. I have never live tweeted anything, so this should be interesting.
....
Some definitions so I can cut down on typing strokes:
F = Flynn
S = Sullivan
D = DOJ
R = Judge Rao
W = Judge Wilkins /1
...
H = Judge Henderson
P = Sidney Powell (Flynn lawyer)
B = Beth Wilkinson (Sullivan lawyer)
J = Jeff Wall (DOJ lawyer)
CA = Court of Appeals
tc = trial court
R48 = Rule 48
sop = separation of powers
cfp = contempt for perjury
FK = Fokker
AM = Ammidown
RD = Rinaldi /2
....
loc = leave of court
SC = Supreme Court
DJT = President Trump
pi = public interest
G = Judge Gleeson
FP = Federal Practitioners amici (my group!)
WG = Watergate Prosecutors amici
ac = amici curiae
ab = amicus briefs
WY = Wayte
pd = prosecutorial discretion
oj = obstruction
/3
....
fs = false statement(s)
LA = Logan Act
caa = court appointed amicus
m = mandamus
plc = plea colloquy
plb = plea bargain
plg = plea agreement
soo = statement of offense
st = sentence/ing
h = hearing
SCO = Special Counsel’s Office
mtw = motion to w/draw
mtd = motion to dismiss
/4
....
....
W now talking about how two judges accepted plea. J saying he disagrees that crossing the plea line suddenly invokes only the court not the executive powers. He’s giving the 7th Circuit (Posner) case as an example. Says the Rule 11 and R48 are not formal judicial actions.
....
J saying S dismissing is just recognizing the co-equal branch’s power, not putting any imprimatur of the court on it.
....
W asking if D had to provide an explanation for dismissal. J says no, but they have the option to do so. He agrees with P that this mtd is very robust and is far more than most ever filed.
....
W now is giving a police brutality hypothetical where the dismissal is based on a racist view by the prosecutor. J says making racially based decisions would result in other fallout separate from the decision on the mtd. R48 is not the mechanism for addressing this.
....
J says FK is a dead letter if the court is going to go behind the govt to look at it’s motive.
....
R asking now about presumption of regularity. J explains this is a reason for reading R48 the way it does, not setting a standard. Citing Armstrong, “clear evidence” of unconsitutional motive would be needed. Favoritism would be bad conduct, but that’s political, not judicial.
....
W again asking about a white police officer not having to answer for abuse. J saying this is a constitutional question - the racial discrimination hypothetical - which isn’t the situation in this case.
....
W asking what loc means then. J pointing out that the issue really is the court has no power to make the case go forward. W’s questions basically indicating that the court should be able to strong arm the govt into doing it anyway. J pushes back on this.
....
H now jumps in - what would be the harm in mandating the mtd. She proposes “regular order” - the disruption she means. No one can find a case requiring it. Says S has set a hearing & appointing amicus. “He may have chose an intemperate amicus.” Ha!
....
H searching for a precedent. S may say: “This amicus is over the top.” and dismiss the case. (Yeah, OK.)
....
J says if she wants “regular order” then the CA should issue a mandamus telling S that an evidentiary hearing and the contempt are off the table, and he should just rule on the R48.
....
J says harm to F obvious - continuous case, prospect of contempt. Harm to Gov is inquiry.
....
H proposes that S will say “I’ve asked for advice. I”m going to ignore this advice.” (She’s hoping that’s what S is going to say!) J says it’s clear from B’s pleading that it is going to play out as the public spectacle that FK says should be avoided.
....
W says D didn’t file a m. J basically says: You want me to file a m, I’ll be happy to do that. W is pushing back on that, saying that’s not regular order. J says very little about the case is regular order. Doesn’t think the D not filing m is “legally relevant.” Ha!
....
J asking them again to at least issue a m that limits what S can do - taking contempt off the table and no evidence hearing. Says FK gives authority for m.
....
R concerned about this partial relief option. Asks if that doesn’t require them to say what is and isn’t on the table. (That’s exactly what he proposed; were you asleep for that?)
J says the m should absolutely issue because “nothing about these proceedings is regular order.”
....
“The cleaner way” is to issue the m. “This is a separation of powers case.” “Actual conflict between the branches.” “I really don’t think it’s hard to see what the harms are going to be to the Govt and the defendant.”
....
H agrees there is an indisputable right, but asks about how Gov doesn’t have a remedy. Again says S may grant. J points to B’s brief and G’s brief impugning Barr and create a political fight. Even if at the end, S grants, it’s still a real harm to Govt & a violation of FK.
...
Basically he’s saying if FK means what it says, then the Gov and F should not have to go through all of whatever S is going to do.
....
B up now. Says S can’t second guess D, but can set a schedule to consider a mtd.
I am really glad to hear that Jennie.
Tracy Beanz
Don’t take questions as a negative in this hearing. They are asked to get argument on record.
..
This judge was appointed by Obama - just saying. She has to argue against his points - to convince that their arguments are correct.
..
The POINT of this hearing is for what we are hearing right now. Don’t take their questions as an assault on General Flynn. They still question the government and then Sullivan. Don’t over react.
You are not going to hear the government attorney defend Flynn you are going to hear the government defend its constitutional authority.
....
Lucius.C.Sulla
This is a full frontal assault.
...............
.........
Tracy Beanz
No. It isn’t.
........
...........
AR-14
Her answers are strong.
NoVa73
I’m glad I’m parked here for this. My heart rate a through the roof.
...
Wayne Williams
Hope you’re right, Tracy.
To us laymen, the judges certainly sound like they badly want to keep the Flynn saga rolling on.
Fingers crossed that this isn’t another stitch-up.
....
BagOfSprite
All arguments must be challenged and questioned. That’s how the strong ones survive, and shape our country. Shift your expectations. This is not a tv courtroom drama, this is real.
....
Taz
Thanks. Our frustration level is high. I for one, am trying to lower my “temperature”. Thanks for the reminder.
**********************
***************************
tRACY bEANZ
..
I need everyone to take a breath and stop making assumptions about what is happening in the hearing. The questions being asked don’t mean the judges are against General Flynn.
....
I will say - this race baiting on behalf of Wilkins is absolutely ridiculous.
....
In addition - this hearing is going very long. The fact that they are spending so much time with the government is a good sign.
....
This argument is a losing argument she is making - if we deny they will just come back. Not a good argument t
....
In a criminal case all that matters is that government and defendant agree to drop. She has no argument here. Sullivan’s attorney isn’t arguing well.
Terrible -
That's just outright PORKISM!
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.