Flynn case dropped!!! Democrats revealed as LIARS!!!
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2023 18:48
VIEWED: 15905
PAGE 15 of 20
Deep State complaining about Deep Stating not being as easy it was to Deep State before Trump got elected.
*yawn*
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
wrong post
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ranking minority member Rep. Jim Jordan claimed the Obama administration was guilty of identical behavior that Barr was today accused of, citing several baseless conspiracy theories that may be unfamiliar to anyone who doesn’t watch 12 hours of Fox News per day. Not even the people ranting about “Obamagate” know what it is.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Deep State complaining about Deep Stating not being as easy it was to Deep State before Trump got elected.
*yawn*
Do Right, Be Right. :)
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-tweet-obamagate-rand
-paul-richard-grenell.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND: blah blah blah... TRUMP! ... blah blah blah
Like I already posted, the majority opinion must be pretty confident because their decision has the right to be appealed. The first step would be asking for a review of the decision by all nine judges of the Appeals Court (en banc review).
It depends on whether Judge Sullivan and pseudo-prosecutor Gleeson think there is any hope in carrying their fight further.
An interesting point, and one that the ever-deepstate-compliant M$M failed to mention, is the reasoning by the majority judges. They didn't reach a decision based on feelz but on previous rulings, in this (literally) case the Fokker decision, which specifically maintained the privilege of prosecution (or not) with the DOJ prosecutors. In Fokker v. US,
Quote:
As I explained last week, the Fokker precedent demands the district court grant the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn, because in Fokker, the court held that “decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges — no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring — lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.”
The Fokker decision was written by Chief Judge Srinivasan, an OBAMA appointee, so you can hardly claim political bias.
Here is an excellent summary and legal discussion of Flynn's case, which is where I got the quote
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/22/appeals-court-order-in-michael-fl
ynn-case-bodes-well-for-him-poorly-for-judge-sullivan/
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#WEARAMASK
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Signym, it is obvious you don't know law, do you? And you are citing the propaganda arm of the Federalist Society, a group which picks the Trump judges for Trump that rule the way Trump wants. But back in the real world of law, where people read Judge Neomi Rao, who was paid for by Trump donors, her legal "reasoning" is phony-baloney. There are three requirements for a writ of mandamus:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND: blah blah blah... TRUMP! ... blah blah blah
Like I already posted, the majority opinion must be pretty confident because their decision has the right to be appealed. The first step would be asking for a review of the decision by all nine judges of the Appeals Court (en banc review).
It depends on whether Judge Sullivan and pseudo-prosecutor Gleeson think there is any hope in carrying their fight further.
An interesting point, and one that the ever-deepstate-compliant M$M failed to mention, is the reasoning by the majority judges. They didn't reach a decision based on feelz but on previous rulings, in this (literally) case the Fokker decision, which specifically maintained the privilege of prosecution (or not) with the DOJ prosecutors. In Fokker v. US,Quote:
As I explained last week, the Fokker precedent demands the district court grant the government’s motion to dismiss the criminal charge against Flynn, because in Fokker, the court held that “decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges — no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring — lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.”
The Fokker decision was written by Chief Judge Srinivasan, an OBAMA appointee, so you can hardly claim political bias.
Here is an excellent summary and legal discussion of Flynn's case, which is where I got the quote
https://thefederalist.com/2020/05/22/appeals-court-order-in-michael-fl
ynn-case-bodes-well-for-him-poorly-for-judge-sullivan/
Three conditions must be satisfied before a court grants a writ of mandamus: (1) the mandamus petitioner must have ‘no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires,’ (2) the mandamus petitioner must show that his right to the issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable,’ and (3) the court, ‘in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.’” (quoting Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380-81)). In issuing a writ of mandamus compelling the District Court to immediately grant the Government’s motion to dismiss the information against Flynn, the majority concludes that each of these prerequisites is satisfied. The majority is in each respect mistaken.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V1MDyK3npBO3NSbKX6x03SonBhF9_xX2/view
A fake Trump purchased judge wrote a fake opinion for Trump's pleasure. Signym, if you can't understand the real law, stop writing about law, please.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, AS I ALREADY POSTED TWICE BEFORE, this decision is subject to appeal. IF the appellant feels they have a leg to stand on, they will appeal. If not, they won't.
But keep on beating this dead horse!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#WEARAMASK
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seriously. How many times does this dipshit type up the word Trump everyday?
I don't even want to know how many times he thinks about Trump daily.
Deranged.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Apropos of what Signy posted, this isn't the first time SECOND has had this idea brought before him.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, AS I ALREADY POSTED TWICE BEFORE, this decision is subject to appeal. IF the appellant feels they have a leg to stand on, they will appeal. If not, they won't.
But keep on beating this dead horse!
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#WEARAMASK
Quote:To quote from the link:
The secret plot to depose Trump
Friday, June 12, 2020 3:59 PM
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
Judges are NOT to create arguments on their own, but must solely rule on arguments presented before them, according to 2 recent Supreme Court rulings.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/markchenoweth/2020/05/14/judge-sullivan-d
isregards-two-controlling-precedents-by-appointing-amicus-in-flynn-case/#7cbbc3ce6f0a
Quote:
One week ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision, authored by Justice Ginsburg, that took judges to task for similar amicus antics. Her opinion for the Court in U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith upbraided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for violating a basic aspect of legal proceedings called the “party presentation principle.” In a nutshell, this concept dictates that judges must decide the case as presented by the parties before them. They are not to go out questing for dragons to slay (or issues to tackle) that the parties have not brought before them. As J. Ginsburg put it: “[C]ourts are essentially passive instruments of government … They ‘do not, or should not, sally forth each day looking for wrongs to right. [They] wait for cases to come to [them], and when [cases arise, courts] normally decide only questions presented by the parties.”
Four years ago, in a precedent even more squarely on point, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (per J. Srinivasan) granted mandamus against a different D.C. district court judge for refusing a government charging decision. J. Sullivan seems poised to ignore the lessons from that higher court ruling, too.
In U.S. v. Fokker Servs. B.V., which I first wrote about for Forbes.com here, the district judge was overturned via an extraordinary writ of mandamus. That means that the government (and Fokker) went directly to the court of appeals and persuaded it to intervene and put a stop to the unlawful conduct of the trial judge. Oddly, J. Sullivan’s Minute Order on amicus briefs in Flynn cites the Fokker precedent to support appointing amicus curiae in a criminal case. But he neglects to mention that mandamus was granted against the district court judge in that case! Moreover, appointing amicus to represent a lower court’s view that neither party will defend (as happened on appeal in Fokker) is far different from appointing amicus in trial court to represent an alternative prosecutor’s view of the case.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Trump is an obssession with him. I bet if there was some scientific way of tracking this, TRUMP! would prolly ping his brain dozens of times an hour. (Think about it: There are 360 seconds in an hour. How many times does TRUMP! cross his minds? No, that's not a typo.)
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Seriously. How many times does this dipshit type up the word Trump everyday?
I don't even want to know how many times he thinks about Trump daily.
Deranged.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
#WEARAMASK
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This ruling only needs to be appealed because the Trump appointed judge has no shame and wrote a legal opinion that was obviously paid for by a Trump donor. Also, the DOJ makes decisions in this and other cases to please Trump rather than follow established law.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Well, AS I ALREADY POSTED TWICE BEFORE, this decision is subject to appeal. IF the appellant feels they have a leg to stand on, they will appeal. If not, they won't.
But keep on beating this dead horse!
DOJ lawyers accuse agency leaders of abusing power in Roger Stone case, other probes
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/24/justice-department-law
yers-accuse-ag-william-barr-politicization/3246083001/
"The testimonies are the latest in a parade of allegations that Barr has turned the Justice Department into a political annex of the president. In the fraught prosecution of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a retired federal judge accused the Justice Department of abusing its prosecutorial power by providing special treatment to an ally of the president."
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME