Posted on 08/11/2020 6:54:08 AM PDT by janetjanet998
LIVE United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Live Stream
Government lawyer suggests Attorney General Barr had secret reasons for dropping Michael Flynn criminal case
But Wall, who was representing the DOJ, told a full panel of judges on the appeals court in Washington, D.C., that Barr’s judgment on Flynn’s case came “in the context of non-public information from other investigations.”
“I just wanted to make clear that it may be possible that the attorney general had before him information that he was not able to share with the court,” Wall said, “and so what we put in front of the court were the reasons that we could, but it may not be the whole picture available to the executive branch.”
So they are saying if Sullivan believes w/o evidence his court would be sullied then they can not drop this, which is BS.
“Judicial Integrity” is a political judgement and they are using that as their reasoning to not drop the charges.
“...Let’s not forget, every one of these judges is hoping one day to get a SCOTUS appointment.................”
******************************************************
Obama judge Millett is almost hysterically trying to make clear that SHE IS POLITICAL. She HUNGERS for nomination to SCOTUS.
I’m done listening to this bullsh*t. They’re railroading Flynn. That’s crystal clear.
Gotdon is awesome!
Is that the intention of these silly hypotheticals? “If I could jump 70 ft would I win an Olympic gold medal?”
The thing is even if one could argue (obviously not the case) that the District Court could second guess the Executive if there were evidence that the AG had been bribed this does not have anything to do with the present case. I’m flabbergasted. The judges sound like ten-year olds having an argument.Is this what we have come to, or was it ever thus?
It’s pretty obvious.
AND it’s pretty disgusting................
The Missouri Compromise had allowed Missouri to enter the Union as a slave state but banned slavery in the rest of the Louisiana Purchase north of 36 degrees 30 minutes North latitude. (That's why there is an Oklahoma panhandle--that area could not belong to Texas because Texas was a slave state.) The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 had opened up what was left of the Louisiana Purchase territories to slavery, if the settlers wanted it (popular sovereignty), which led to "Bleeding Kansas." So that was before the Dred Scott decision.
You just gave me an interesting thought:
Maybe this Barr "private information" thing is a trap to suck the DC Circuit into making a blatantly political ruling on Flynn, then blowtorching all of the ones who voted against Flynn by dropping the private evidence into the public domain.
Trump's people have got to get this dance started very soon, because we're running out of time before the election.
Think about being Trump and his team, and having the heads of a bunch of ClownBammy-RapinBill "judges" on your wall going into November...
. The judges sound like ten-year olds having an argument
Imagine Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as a lawyer
One thing is for sure- lots of folks are going to be looking for the dirt that’s “part of another investigation”....
Spot on....
:-(
Whew!
Can we get a standing ovation in gratitude that Garland is not on SCOTUS? Inept and bitter. What a combination.
If anyone sees a transcript for this after it’s over, I’d appreciate a ping to it.
Leslie McAdoo Gordon
@McAdooGordon
Griffith ask if the case was at an earlier stage, then what would happen. Could the judicial branch compel the govt to go forward? WB says no, but at this stage, the power and integrity of the court are involved.
“”Why has no one brought this up?””
Good point! I’m embarrassed that you should ask. You know that’s not HOW it works! Flynn is not going to get fairness. He should have had Powell for his attorney from the beginning but who knew that? Everyone paying attention NOW KNOWS!
Griffith asking her view of Gleeson. WB says it makes sense to appoint Gleeson to oppose the govt since his position was publicly opposed - basically he would make strong argument on that side.— Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) August 11, 2020
What side? I thought judge sullivan's argument was the integrity of the court, not that he represented a side. Since the DOJ has stopped the prosecution there are no two sides!
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.