Posted on 06/01/2020 8:50:37 AM PDT by weston
https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon/status/1271461817592709120
..
Leslie McAdoo Gordon
((((Lawyer - security clearances, debarment, gov’t employee discipline, criminal/OIG investigations trials & appeals; expert (clearance law) in federal court & DoD)))
..
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
....
cont.
B up now. Says S can’t second guess D, but can set a schedule to consider a mtd.
....
R asks if appointing G isn’t creating a “case & controversy” when the parties agree to the dismissal. B says no because that would deprive even a dismissal of force because of the lack of jurisdiction. (I agree with this position actually.)
....
R turns to what standard is loc in the Rule. B rambles a bit, not actually answering, saying the judge can make inquiry. R takes a different tack - what does the “public interest” factor mean? It’s not in the rule. B points out that RD raises this issue.
....
She’s explaining Rehnquist’s dissent on it.
...
She pivots to FK, saying it mentions the scrutiny. Here, the judge is just going to hold a hearing; he just asked for advice. She denies S will be doing affidavits.
....
R asks now about the “presumption of regularity.” B says all that’s happening is the judge asking questions of the govt, which happens all the time.
....
R says well, but here an amicus was appointed, which doesn’t happen all the time. B concedes (this is how good appellate advocates work - concede everything that doesn’t hurt you.) But says it’s fine here because the parties are on the same side, not opposed.
....
B saying it’s important here because there is no adversarial posture. R asking, but in a criminal case the adversary relationship is govt v. defendant, is the “adversary” the court in some way in the amicus situation.
....
B saying the amicus is adversarial in the sense that opposing arguments are needed by the court. Indicating to H, she again says S might grant it, asking for opposing views only.
....
R turns to the sop issue. Wants to know what Article III power (judicial) is at issue. B saying the court has the power to ask questions to evaluate the motion. She says the govt argument amounts to ignoring the loc language altogether.
....
R pointing out that if loc gives power to the court to deny the motion, it would mean going to sentencing in a situation where the govt doesn’t want to proceed. B avoids this and focuses instead on her argument that loc can’t mean nothing -that that’s not what the other cases do.
....
W now bringing up the police brutality/racist rationale hypo again for B to address. She thinks the court could refuse to grant a mtd in that kind of case. But then says she doesn’t know if the judge could go on to sentence the defendant in that case.
....
No pending question. B says S has not prejudged the mtd and he will carry out his responsibilities to consider the motion appropriately.
....
Court now giving P a few minutes of rebuttal. She launches into how there was no proper Rule 11 finding here. This is not a strong way to go, but she finally gets to the Stevens case and says S didn’t look behind the 2 page motion in that case.
....
She can’t understand how all the cases in the country can say the court’s can’t deny these kinds of motions, but Flynn’s case is somehow different.
....
H now giving time to DOJ again.
....
J now giving the court the list of horribles of the things that B put in her brief that S wants to know to illustrate how “the train should not leave the station.” He basically says, it has to be a dismissal in the end, so why are we going to go through all that.
....
H now giving J some help. She brings up that the CA should let the Executive correct itself. J runs with this. Saying the AG dismissing a case to correct earlier misconduct is at the core of executive function.
....
It was a strong ending for J.
....
Case is submitted. The Court gives no indication of when it will rule.
....
Interesting argument. Very different styles by the advocates. Each showed strengths and weaknesses as advocates. Each of the judges also has a distinct style. I’ve recently appeared before Judges Henderson and Wilkins. I’ve not been before Rao yet.
....
Taking a minute to refresh my tea & get a bite to eat and then I’ll come back with thoughts and predictions!
Good morning. You are welcome. Thank you. Amen
Woman Called her a racist for having a flag.
That is insane!
So far so good. ;-)
Thanks, Gran. Amen.
Looks like the democrats and our liberal 'educators' have accomplished their mission.
L
Agreeing with a resounding AMEN!
You are right, Jemian, that happened in early January.
CHAZ has set up a supplies poster, apperently it's raining in Seattle right now so this is probably as of just a couple of hours ago
Surprisingly they want Gatorade more than water pic.twitter.com/yZhkpbBWyN— CHAZUpdates (@chaz_updates) June 12, 2020
https://twitter.com/drawandstrike/status/1271479181403140096
GREAT thread.....Its explains Esper’s roll and our President’s.
Subject: Out of Town Pool Report #1 - Lid
Good morning from Bridgewater, New Jersey. The White House called a travel/photo lid at 11 AM.
Microsoft President Brad Smith “We will not sell facial-recognition technology to police departments in the US until we have a national law, grounded in human rights.”
Speaking of human rights...69 countries criminalize homosexuality. Do you sell technology to any of them? https://t.co/ANLSRCMfEY— Richard Grenell (@RichardGrenell) June 12, 2020
CNN would never show footage like this. If you are a news channell, then show both sides of the coin. We will defund CNN. First a massive awareness then a lawsuit, to ask not compensations for the damage their lies caused. Follow: @defund_the
CNN for info on how to defund it pic.twitter.com/lqhw5XSolm— Alex Jungle (@AlexJungle2) June 12, 2020
Great @drawandstrike thread.
Thanks for the link.
Do we have a GREAT president or what?
He stays many steps ahead and have no fear we are WINNING!!!!
I admire Richard Grenell more with his every new tweet. It’s too bad that PDJT did not have more smart Patriots like Grenell on his team.
Am at Applebee’s eating a bite. Waiting to pick up GM and a cart from HD to help move our funds to storage. Their manager has gone beyond his duty to fix food that I’m not allergic to. Soy is in everything!
Cleaned out pick up this morning and found my bib overalls and hooded sweat shirt and my “coat of many colors” a quilted jacket I loved. More blessings.
Can feel those prayers Thank you all. God is good all the time.
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.