Posted on 08/11/2020 6:54:08 AM PDT by janetjanet998
LIVE United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Live Stream
Yes, but not until they have ruled. Court rules allow amended and additional motions. Look for Sullivan’s lawyers (handlers) to use procedural tactics to drag this out for weeks and weeks equivalent to a legal filibuster.
“Flynn’s original attorney was giving him bad advice and was, quite clearly, working for the other side.”
I agree with that. The Eric Holder law firm.
A lady (not sure who) asked hypothetical —
what if government receives DNA evidence that clears someone and prosecution decides to drop the case - is it appropriate to take 7 weeks to decide whether to drop case?
Answer — the person representing Sullivan says yes and is arguing that its OK and depends on circumstances.
LOL
What I’m hearing is judges searching and reaching for reasons to continue this farce without any justification. They can do this, but as they are testifying, they can only deny mandamus if they fail (refuse) to provide justification.
As long as Trump wins in November there is only one ultimate outcome. Flynn will be exonerated. This process is an attempt to keep Trump from winning. If Trump does not win, then he will pardon Flynn before leaving office. So Flynn will walk either way.
The bottom legal line here is that there was and is no pending case for Flynn to obstruct. So no obstruction charge should legally be able to prevail or even continue.
Wilkens up. He wants to know what the public interest factors are that the district court could explore. WB says not second guessing the prosecutor, but things like judicial integrity in the process.— Leslie McAdoo Gordon (@McAdooGordon) August 11, 2020
And you got to ask: "What prosecutor?" Is she saying the judge is also the prosecutor, or is the amici going to act as prosecutor? Hangman as well?
Leslie McAdoo Gordon
@McAdooGordon
·
2m
WB says it’s a suggestion to the court to act only. Henderson agrees Sullivan not a party, but says WB invoked a rule only parties can use.
Not going so well for WB/Sullivan right now.
Leslie McAdoo Gordon
@McAdooGordon
This is an astonishing, fascinating argument. She says he’s just asking 10 to decide what the 3 decided; it’s not like a new request or that he has a interest separate from his original response which they invited.
In the end this is about the gag order silencing General Flynn. My hope is he has already sang and been granted full immunity as a cooperating witness. It would be nice to see indictments based on his cooperation despite tge DS’s best efforts.
Fascinating to listen to this. It is quite an illustrative exercise on how detached our judiciary system is from common sense and rationale thought.
These judges and lawyers are lost in the weeds and can rationalize almost anything.
Glad I hung on after getting so disgusted to hear Sidney Powell’s rebuttal!
There is no actual gag order on Flynn by Judge Sullivan. He is likely keeping his mouth shut on advice of his lawyers..
Appeals court likely to let judge decide whether to drop Michael Flynn charges
The issue for the appeals court is whether Flynn’s lawyers jumped the gun by seeking a writ of mandamus instead of waiting for the judge to rule.
Dirty Emmet is now the prosecutor...
Dirty Emmet is now the prosecutor...
someone help me..
What is the point of having the hearing Sullivan wants
you either drop the case
or
somehow force the prosecution to continue
how can a judge force the prosecution to continue?
Thank you for posting that.
As a non-lawyer, I find very little in the law that makes sense. I’m not sure those who are lawyers think it’s sensible or rational, either, but it’s the system that allows them to make boatloads of money so I’m guessing that’s why they play along.
If the average person is expected to obey the law, then the laws ought to be written so that the average person can understand them. That goes double for contracts. Pages and pages of unintelligible small print that few people read (like software agreements) are an abomination.
You can't force the prosecutor to continue.
This is Judicial Calvinball.
They're just making it up as they go along, for a pre-determined outcome.
I hope Barr blows them up with his "non-public" information.
Schrage is also being ignored in this - I think he'll be rolling out more depth charges this week and next.
To delay Justice
First a comment. Beth Wilkinson stated that Sullivan would accept whatever ruling was made by the en banc court. Why is that? If Sullivan is convinced that the integrity of the District Court is at risk, why would he accept the ruling of an en banc panel when he refused to accept the ruling of a three judge panel? If an important legal principle is at stake why would Sullivan not ask for the Supreme Court to override a denial by the en banc court?
Second, a question. At the end of the hearing, Sydney Powell asks the court to deny Sullivan's petition for re-hearing and issue the mandate themselves.
I thought this was the re-hearing. Does this mean that the en banc panel might just grant a re-hearing and then schedule a future hearing to hear the merits? This is confusing to me. Anybody know the answer?
The answer
Lawyers work by the hour. The more hours, the more pay.
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.