Posted on 05/12/2020 6:29:57 PM PDT by ransomnote
there is the fruit of the poisonous tree aspects of these things. The case should have never been brought. The FISC might get into the picture here because they ordered a review of other FISA cases to identify such cases. What Sullivan is trying to do by ultimately dismissing the case, as he must, and then citing Flynn with contempt and sentencing him for that, is still dependent on the case getting into court to then be abused by the system. Other judges will certainly recognize that particularly given precedent of other case history in the DC Circuit & the SCOTUS re the 9th last week. TBD + WWG1WGA :)
Sorry about the last post. It’s a year old.
It was posted on 8k, and so far no one there has called it out. Hmmm.
You speak American very well for a foreigner.
I supported Sessions for a long time and still believe he is a good man. But I think many are reading more into this than there is...Trump hired him, saw him at work, was disappointed in a key decision he made, and eventually fired him. The reason he didn’t fire him sooner is probably a combination of needing him to do the other work that needed done at DOJ (which we don’t know much about) and to avoid drawing more criticism onto himself at a time when it wasn’t needed. Someone needed to launch the investigations into leaking, start to clean house, and keep the multiple other activities of this important department on track.
Sessions (correctly IMHO) believed he had no choice but to recuse himself on the Russia matter. Not because it was part of some elaborate scheme cooked up to expose the deep state but because he felt it was the right thing to do, ethically and legally. I believe those principles are what guide him, and that he didn’t deserve any of the abuse and ridicule that was heaped on him, especially on FR where people should know better, and know how to be respectful of different views. But alas...
I also think Sessions did his job in the Senate and now ought to focus his life on going fishing with his grandkids. I suspect Trump does too, and that may be why he endorsed his opponent, who will also be a strong Trump ally.
Impeach the pole now!
Oh oh oh still zero zero zero.
It’s a man, man.
Mr. Burgess of TX questions the latest “whistleblower” Richarc Bright in testimony before RAT committee about HCQ and effectively outlines the cure for COVID-19 is to use with Arithromyacin + Zinc and to do so early in the process. He is shut down but Wright has to answer the question by saying something like they can’t consider the case studies that have been done because they haven’t been conducted with all of the proper oversight and the ones that have been for the purpose of demonstrating that it doesn’t work so well when HCQ is administered on its own to patients near death. Covered live on CNN + MSNBC, headline “VIRUS WILL GET MUCH WORSE”. what a fraud. THESE PEOPLE ARE SICK!
I’m so happy for you, and just a tiny bit envious. You’ll have the ability to actively bring about change inside America with your vote, and then America can influence the world with its leadership and information. I’ll do my part here in Canada by trying to influence my fellow citizens using that same information to change their apathy. We’re both on the front lines of different battles in the same fight.
782. Direct Contempt--Summary Punishment at the End of Trial-Judicial Bias -
782. Direct Contempt--Summary Punishment at the End of Trial-Judicial Bias"[T]here are two policies which may justify summary contempt proceedings before the trial judge. First, it may be necessary to preserve order in the courtroom in order to protect the authority of the court and the integrity of the trial process--the policy of preserving order. Second, there is a notion that when contemptuous conduct has occurred before the judge in open court, it would be a useless formality and a waste of resources to indulge in a full hearing because the judge, having witnessed the conduct, is competent to interpret the facts and apply the law--the waste of resources justification." Cooke v. United States, 267 U.S. 517, 534 (1925); United States v. Meyer, 462 F.2d 827, 831 (D.C.Cir. 1972).
When a summary contempt proceeding is conducted at the end of a trial, the policy of preserving order in the courtroom is inapplicable since the trial has already been terminated. If the judge is biased against the contemnor, then the waste of resources justification is absent since the judge will be unable to competently interpret the facts and apply the law. Bias arises when the judge becomes "personally embroiled" with the contemnor, Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 17 (1954), when he necessarily becomes embroiled in a running controversy with the contemnor so that he might naturally be expected to harbor "marked personal feelings," Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U.S. 488, 503 (1974); Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 464 (1971), or when he is in adversary posture with the contemnor, even if he has not been personally attacked. Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U.S. 212, 215-16 (1971). It should be noted that it is not the contemnor's conduct alone which determines whether bias exists, but rather the character of the judge's response to such conduct. Taylor, 418 U.S. at 503 n. 10.
During the course of a trial, a judge may impose immediate summary punishment upon a contemnor even if he is biased. The policy of preserving order in the courtroom outweighs the waste of resources justification. Mayberry, 400 U.S. at 463; United States v. Seale, 461 F.2d 345, 351 (7th Cir. 1972). When the judge chooses to act summarily at the end of the trial (when the policy of preserving order in the courtroom is inapplicable), he may do so only in the absence of bias. When bias is present, the judge must disqualify himself and permit another judge to conduct the contempt proceeding pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Compare Taylor, 418 U.S. 488; Mayberry, 400 U.S. 455; Offutt, 348 U.S. 11; Meyer, 462 F.2d 827; In re Dellinger, 461 F.2d 389 (7th Cir. 1972); and United States v. Seale, 461 F.2d 345 with Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1 (1952); Weiss v. Burr, 484 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1161 (1974); United States v. Schiffer, 351 F.2d 91 (6th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1003 (1966); United States v. Galante, 298 F.2d 72 (2d Cir. 1962).
In the absence of bias, where the contemnor is an attorney the preferred procedure is for the judge to act summarily at the end of the trial rather than during the trial. Such a procedure minimizes the prejudice to the attorney's client which arises from the contempt action. Taylor, 418 U.S. at 498; Mayberry, 400 U.S. at 463 (policy is not present when defendant is proceeding pro se); Sacher, 343 U.S. 1.
To determine bias, the Supreme Court has held that:
[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.Liteky v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157 (1994). See also In Re International Business Machines Corp., 45 F.3d 641, 644 (2d Cir. 1995).
If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC, just do it. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14, 2020
Clicked on the link for the tool and got this:
No-one ever sees a reply I make to a Trump tweet, has been that way for months.
When I first started tweeting about 6 months ago got lots of likes when posting support for Trump on his twitter feed, then after a few days twitter figured out I was pro-Trump then my posts were not being shown!
Only if I post a reply to a negative post are they seen, then only by clicking on a "see more replies" link.
If a Senator is appointed to fill Burr’s seat, doesn’t the replacement have to be the same party? And isn’t there sometimes a special election, just as there was in CA to fill the empty Rep seat?
Think his replacement would be picked by the Gov, NC has a D Gov so we will lose his seat until Nov election.
WTH is this from POTUS? Hell no Mr. President, I don’t like the sound of this AT ALL.
President Trump to tap former pharma exec for ‘Operation Warp Speed,’ wants military to distribute coronavirus vaccine by end of the year
https://www.theblaze.com/news/trump-operation-warp-speed-coronavirus-vaccine
freepmail
https://whitehouse.typeform.com/to/Jti9QH
I see the same.
My complaint would be that frequently, when I go to Twitter, they won’t render the request and instead say I’m rate limited i.e. platform believes I’m a “bot”. This happens when I click a link off qmap for example. Then when I refresh the page, without the refer link in the header, it will “work”. Beyond that I would like them to determine if + how those requests are accounted for because my guess is they still count them as “hits” which would be fraud and Twitter is a publicly traded company.
TBD + WWG1WGA :)
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.