Republicans have been screwing that same poor pooch since long before I was born. Republicans have written the book on how to do it doggie style.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:56 amI do blame my Party.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:37 amTrump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:35 amYour Party gave you Hillary...silly man.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:33 amThey sure do!!tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:29 am"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:09 amYeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:46 amThanks for posting.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:20 am These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.
If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.
For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns
Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.
I'm a Republican...and we screwed the pooch with Trump.
JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15499
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15499
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
Correct me if I am wrong, I remember like 16 other Republican chuckleheads out there running against trump when the primaries started.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:37 amTrump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:35 amYour Party gave you Hillary...silly man.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:33 amThey sure do!!tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:29 am"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:09 amYeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:46 amThanks for posting.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:20 am These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.
If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.
For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns
Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
-
- Posts: 34216
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
Yes. So republicans had plenty of opportunities to pick someone else.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:14 pmCorrect me if I am wrong, I remember like 16 other Republican chuckleheads out there running against trump when the primaries started.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:37 amTrump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:35 amYour Party gave you Hillary...silly man.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:33 amThey sure do!!tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:29 am"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:09 amYeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:46 amThanks for posting.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:20 am These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.
If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.
For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns
Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.
“I wish you would!”
- cradleandshoot
- Posts: 15499
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
You would have to ask MD to explain that one. That is a mind boggling thing I don't understand to this day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:18 pmYes. So republicans had plenty of opportunities to pick someone else.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:14 pmCorrect me if I am wrong, I remember like 16 other Republican chuckleheads out there running against trump when the primaries started.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:37 amTrump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:35 amYour Party gave you Hillary...silly man.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:33 amThey sure do!!tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:29 am"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:09 amYeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:46 amThanks for posting.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:20 am These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.
If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.
For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns
Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.
We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents.
Bob Ross:
Bob Ross:
Re: The Politics of National Security
I'm not making light of any behavior in our government. I'm making light of....and making fun of.....you. You see, how it works in America is that you don't get to make up a bunch of stuff about lawbreaking, pretend it's true, and now "therefore" it's true. We have actual courts of law where you have to PROVE things are true. Something you keep forgetting about, because, of course, we're talking about Democrats.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:18 pma fan positioning himself to be wrong. It's all just SOP for our political parties these daysold salt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:23 pmHere we go again, the ultimate whataboutism excuse maker. Nothing that Trump did justifies the DoJ, FBI & IC abuses of power marshaled against Flynn, Papadop, Page, Trump & his campaign.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:14 pmSometimes we forget that only you and Pete get to dismiss what our government has done.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 5:25 pmThey'll dismiss it as just another tin foil hat conspiracy, without even reading itPeter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:10 pm Devastating article on Russiagate.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-spies ... ed-america
Might be a tad too long for the birdbrains here but such is life.
Amazing sone of these NATSEC people aren’t in jail right now.
Because few things are funnier than TrumpApologists lecturing their fellow Americans about ethics in American governance, and how important they are.
So sure, go ahead and tell us about ethical behavior in governance more.....we're just at the edge of our seats. Next thing you'll tell us, it's unethical to profit off of one's position in the Federal Government, right?
a fan, could it be you're just another cog in the resistance machine? The end justifies the means...
I'm the one who wants ethics in government. I listened, patiently, to you and the rest of your Deep Stater for four years. I agree that if proven, what you were alleging is indeed bad and unwanted behavior. Been saying that from the word go that the allegedly illegal leaks should be found and punished.
The part that you and your fellow DeepStaters don't want to hear is: YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE WHAT YOU ARE ALLEGING.
Get it? Clear enough for you? You have NO PROOF of crimes. If you did? Barr, or any of the other six (!) investigations would have yield not just one, not just two, but MULTIPLE indictments of your Deep State.
So you and OS's game for four years? You wanted legal proof of Trump's lawbreaking. And when you didn't get it? You made fun of RussiaGate, right?
And yet when I ask for the same exact legal proof of your Deep State lawbreaking? I'm part of the Resistance. That about the score here?
I can't imagine why on Earth I'm making fun of your double standard. I must be insane.
Re: The Politics of National Security
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:25 pm I'm the one who wants ethics in government. If so, you too should want this stuff exposed, even if it can't be prosecuted.
The part that you and your fellow DeepStaters don't want to hear is: YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE WHAT YOU ARE ALLEGING.
Can't prove it when the FBI & DoJ withold the documents to protect their confidential informants. It's politically untenable for Trump to order their release & expose the informants. Durham's investigation not likely completed before election because covid delayed grand jury.
Get it? Clear enough for you? You have NO PROOF of crimes. If you did? Barr, or any of the other six (!) investigations would have yield not just one, not just two, but MULTIPLE indictments of your Deep State.As I repeatedly point out to you, I don't necessarily expect indictments due to the difficulty in proving intent. Not all abuses of power can be successfully prosecuted as crimes. Nonetheless, they need to be exposed & the perpetrators held accountable politically & professionally, if not criminally.
So you and OS's game for four years? You wanted legal proof of Trump's lawbreaking. And when you didn't get it? You made fun of RussiaGate, right?
We're finally getting it. investigations might not be complete before the election
Re: The Politics of National Security
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:25 pmI'm not making light of any behavior in our government. I'm making light of....and making fun of.....you. You see, how it works in America is that you don't get to make up a bunch of stuff about lawbreaking, pretend it's true, and now "therefore" it's true. We have actual courts of law where you have to PROVE things are true. Something you keep forgetting about, because, of course, we're talking about Democrats.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:18 pma fan positioning himself to be wrong. It's all just SOP for our political parties these daysold salt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:23 pmHere we go again, the ultimate whataboutism excuse maker. Nothing that Trump did justifies the DoJ, FBI & IC abuses of power marshaled against Flynn, Papadop, Page, Trump & his campaign.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:14 pmSometimes we forget that only you and Pete get to dismiss what our government has done.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 5:25 pmThey'll dismiss it as just another tin foil hat conspiracy, without even reading itPeter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:10 pm Devastating article on Russiagate.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-spies ... ed-america
Might be a tad too long for the birdbrains here but such is life.
Amazing sone of these NATSEC people aren’t in jail right now.
Because few things are funnier than TrumpApologists lecturing their fellow Americans about ethics in American governance, and how important they are.
So sure, go ahead and tell us about ethical behavior in governance more.....we're just at the edge of our seats. Next thing you'll tell us, it's unethical to profit off of one's position in the Federal Government, right?
a fan, could it be you're just another cog in the resistance machine? The end justifies the means...
I'm the one who wants ethics in government. I listened, patiently, (patiently?, now THAT is funny) to you and the rest of your Deep Stater for four years. I agree that if proven, what you were alleging is indeed bad and unwanted behavior. Been saying that from the word go that the allegedly illegal leaks should be found and punished. "Bad and unwanted?"...how bout against the law?
The part that you and your fellow DeepStaters don't want to hear is: YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE WHAT YOU ARE ALLEGING.
I don't have to prove anything but I am looking forward to the results of the Durham/Bash investigations. And oh, I thought you were being "patient?" Perhaps, as I've been saying to you for the longest time, wait for the investigations to conclude before you start berating people who don't agree with your chronic view of things.
Get it? Clear enough for you? You have NO PROOF of crimes. If you did? Barr, or any of the other six (!) investigations would have yield not just one, not just two, but MULTIPLE indictments of your Deep State.
So you and OS's game for four years? You wanted legal proof of Trump's lawbreaking. And when you didn't get it? You made fun of RussiaGate, right? Please show where I made "fun" of Russiagate.
And yet when I ask for the same exact legal proof of your Deep State lawbreaking? I'm part of the Resistance. That about the score here? Of course you are the Resistance. Your posts speak volumes of your fealty, and Mrs. a fan would not have it any other way.
I can't imagine why on Earth I'm making fun of your double standard. I must be insane. No, just confused.
Re: The Politics of National Security
It's been FOUR YEARS, tech. Four. Not one. Not two. Not three. Four.
And you're going to play dumb and act like the current Durham investigation isn't the-----i've lost track----like investigation #7 ?
It's been four year: who broke what law?
You can't tell me. Know how I know? No one has been so much as indicted, let alone convicted.
Great. So does this Durham investigation count for you? Because the other investigations that led to not a single guilty plea didn't.
So Durham comes out, and there are no guilty pleas-----you're telling me that you're going to finally agree with his findings, and agree that there is no such thing as your Deep State?
As do yours. If I'm Resistance, that makes you an all out TrumpFan.
Boy, is sure is a tough choice as to which one I'd rather be......
Re: The Politics of National Security
It does not make one a Trump fan if they think it is wrong for members of the FBI & IC to spy on a campaign,
then try to subvert the resulting Presidency.
The ends do not justify the means.
then try to subvert the resulting Presidency.
The ends do not justify the means.
-
- Posts: 6691
- Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
Only fools and imbeciles believe Trump’s version of events.
Now ... who would want to cast dispersion on the FBI and U.S. intelligence community?
Oh that’s right ... Vladimir Putin.
DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
Re: The Politics of National Security
You are willfully blind on this. I've been pointing this stuff out to you ever since it started, with every leak or unnamed source media hit piece, all the way back to predicting how the IC would go after Flynn as soon as he started advising Trump.
Flynn was the appetizer, Trump is the entree'.
Re: The Politics of National Security
You're delusional.old salt wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:28 amYou are willfully blind on this. I've been pointing this stuff out to you ever since it started, with every leak or unnamed source media hit piece, all the way back to predicting how the IC would go after Flynn as soon as he started advising Trump.
Flynn was the appetizer, Trump is the entree'.
Yeah, right and Federal Judge Sullivan (Bush appointee) is also in on the caper, too.
Trump is certainly not an "entree' more like to fast food happy meal missing a few items....and a lying sack of you-know-what.
Re: The Politics of National Security
You need to pay attention.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:25 pmThe part that you and your fellow DeepStaters don't want to hear is: YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE WHAT YOU ARE ALLEGING.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:18 pma fan positioning himself to be wrong. It's all just SOP for our political parties these daysold salt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:23 pmHere we go again, the ultimate whataboutism excuse maker. Nothing that Trump did justifies the DoJ, FBI & IC abuses of power marshaled against Flynn, Papadop, Page, Trump & his campaign.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:14 pmSometimes we forget that only you and Pete get to dismiss what our government has done.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 5:25 pmThey'll dismiss it as just another tin foil hat conspiracy, without even reading itPeter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:10 pm Devastating article on Russiagate.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-spies ... ed-america
Might be a tad too long for the birdbrains here but such is life.
Amazing sone of these NATSEC people aren’t in jail right now.
Because few things are funnier than TrumpApologists lecturing their fellow Americans about ethics in American governance, and how important they are.
So sure, go ahead and tell us about ethical behavior in governance more.....we're just at the edge of our seats. Next thing you'll tell us, it's unethical to profit off of one's position in the Federal Government, right?
a fan, could it be you're just another cog in the resistance machine? The end justifies the means...
In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE
But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.
Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.
Re: The Politics of National Security
What To Watch For In Michael Flynn’s Case On Tuesday
by Joshua Geltzer
August 10, 2020
On Tuesday at 9:30 am ET, Michael Flynn is back in court—or at least his case is. Here’s what to listen for.
Many readers will recall that after Flynn pleaded guilty (twice) to the federal crime of lying to investigators, the Justice Department abruptly announced that it intended to drop the charges against him. Not so fast, said the district judge presiding over the case. Dropping charges requires “leave of court,” and Judge Emmet Sullivan announced he’d want to receive briefing from a court-appointed amicus curiae (or “friend of the court”) and to hold a hearing before deciding whether to grant such leave. Before the briefing could be completed or the hearing held, Flynn’s lawyers—though not the Justice Department—ran to the court of appeals seeking an emergency form of intervention called “mandamus relief” to block Judge Sullivan from even understanding—and ensuring the public can understand—what had occurred at the Justice Department to cause such an about-face. The Department then chimed in to support Flynn. And, much to the astonishment of many close observers, the three-judge panel that initially heard the case agreed with Flynn in a split decision.
But that decision is now gone, wiped away by the D.C. Circuit’s decision to rehear the case en banc, in this instance in front of ten judges. Here are key points to listen for during Tuesday’s oral argument:
(1) Premature or timely review
Do the judges think that an appeals court needs to take the unusual step of intervening now, on the emergency posture of a mandamus petition, to prevent the district court from proceeding, or can any potential concerns with how the district court handles the case be addressed later, on ordinary appeal? The en banc court could dispose of the case at this stage on narrow grounds: that emergency relief is uncalled for, partly because normal appellate review is available later. The D.C. Circuit judges showed their interest in exploring this central issue with their order to rehear the case en banc, which included direction to the lawyers to be prepared to argue on Tuesday about whether there are adequate alternative means to attain appropriate relief from what the district court might do.
(2) The district court’s powers
What do the judges think “leave of court” means? The district judge, by seeking briefing and calling a hearing, indicated that, at a minimum, that language in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must mean that “federal judges are not supposed to be potted plants,” as coauthors and I phrased it in an earlier piece. Expect the judges to test, on Tuesday, theories of why this term – leave of court — was deliberately included in the federal rules if a district judge in fact can do nothing more than dismiss charges once asked to do so by the Justice Department—the position being advanced by Flynn and the Trump DOJ. Will the judges find a narrow space for district courts to seek briefing and a hearing, but too narrow to fit what Sullivan ordered in Flynn’s case?
(3) Flynn’s charges
How much do the judges need to say about the particularities of the Flynn case and the nature of further proceedings in the district court? As indicated above, if a majority of judges is inclined to deny Flynn’s request for emergency relief, that majority could simply stop there—without specifying anything further about what the district judge should or should not do in receiving briefing that’s been paused. The ball would simply be back in the district court to hold a now-postponed hearing. But a majority could say more if it so chose—even to the point of specifying what it thinks the nature of any hearing should be in the district court and how the district judge should decide whether to grant the government’s request to dismiss the charges, including whether to do so with or without prejudice. (Neal Katyal and I previously have urged any potential dismissal to be without prejudice so that a future Justice Department at least could take another look at the case.)
(4) Judge Sullivan’s courtroom
Do the judges think that, even if they allow further proceedings in the district court rather than ordering immediate dismissal of the charges, the case should be reassigned to a different district judge? The appellate judges are interested in considering this option, as evidenced by another order they issued asking the lawyers to be prepared to address this topic. The logic might be that, with the judge having been forced—albeit by Flynn’s lawyers—into the unusual posture of having to become a party in the adversarial mandamus proceedings, even to the point of being represented by counsel, assuming an impartial role back in the district court may be difficult.
The Flynn case has become about much more than Michael Flynn. It’s become, as Katyal and I explained, the most concrete instantiation of President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr’s assault on federal law enforcement and attempt to portray it as the villain. What’s more, the Flynn episode has become emblematic of the claim Trump and Barr insist on making repeatedly that somehow federal law enforcement acted improperly in 2016 when it tried to investigate counterintelligence threats to the United States that, ultimately, proved all too real. But, on Tuesday, all of that will be merely the backdrop. The spotlight will be on the law. And it’s worth Americans listening carefully for what ten judges will be saying as they grapple with what particular areas of law that intersect in this unusual matter mean for the next steps in the Flynn case.
https://www.justsecurity.org/71936/what ... n-tuesday/
by Joshua Geltzer
August 10, 2020
On Tuesday at 9:30 am ET, Michael Flynn is back in court—or at least his case is. Here’s what to listen for.
Many readers will recall that after Flynn pleaded guilty (twice) to the federal crime of lying to investigators, the Justice Department abruptly announced that it intended to drop the charges against him. Not so fast, said the district judge presiding over the case. Dropping charges requires “leave of court,” and Judge Emmet Sullivan announced he’d want to receive briefing from a court-appointed amicus curiae (or “friend of the court”) and to hold a hearing before deciding whether to grant such leave. Before the briefing could be completed or the hearing held, Flynn’s lawyers—though not the Justice Department—ran to the court of appeals seeking an emergency form of intervention called “mandamus relief” to block Judge Sullivan from even understanding—and ensuring the public can understand—what had occurred at the Justice Department to cause such an about-face. The Department then chimed in to support Flynn. And, much to the astonishment of many close observers, the three-judge panel that initially heard the case agreed with Flynn in a split decision.
But that decision is now gone, wiped away by the D.C. Circuit’s decision to rehear the case en banc, in this instance in front of ten judges. Here are key points to listen for during Tuesday’s oral argument:
(1) Premature or timely review
Do the judges think that an appeals court needs to take the unusual step of intervening now, on the emergency posture of a mandamus petition, to prevent the district court from proceeding, or can any potential concerns with how the district court handles the case be addressed later, on ordinary appeal? The en banc court could dispose of the case at this stage on narrow grounds: that emergency relief is uncalled for, partly because normal appellate review is available later. The D.C. Circuit judges showed their interest in exploring this central issue with their order to rehear the case en banc, which included direction to the lawyers to be prepared to argue on Tuesday about whether there are adequate alternative means to attain appropriate relief from what the district court might do.
(2) The district court’s powers
What do the judges think “leave of court” means? The district judge, by seeking briefing and calling a hearing, indicated that, at a minimum, that language in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must mean that “federal judges are not supposed to be potted plants,” as coauthors and I phrased it in an earlier piece. Expect the judges to test, on Tuesday, theories of why this term – leave of court — was deliberately included in the federal rules if a district judge in fact can do nothing more than dismiss charges once asked to do so by the Justice Department—the position being advanced by Flynn and the Trump DOJ. Will the judges find a narrow space for district courts to seek briefing and a hearing, but too narrow to fit what Sullivan ordered in Flynn’s case?
(3) Flynn’s charges
How much do the judges need to say about the particularities of the Flynn case and the nature of further proceedings in the district court? As indicated above, if a majority of judges is inclined to deny Flynn’s request for emergency relief, that majority could simply stop there—without specifying anything further about what the district judge should or should not do in receiving briefing that’s been paused. The ball would simply be back in the district court to hold a now-postponed hearing. But a majority could say more if it so chose—even to the point of specifying what it thinks the nature of any hearing should be in the district court and how the district judge should decide whether to grant the government’s request to dismiss the charges, including whether to do so with or without prejudice. (Neal Katyal and I previously have urged any potential dismissal to be without prejudice so that a future Justice Department at least could take another look at the case.)
(4) Judge Sullivan’s courtroom
Do the judges think that, even if they allow further proceedings in the district court rather than ordering immediate dismissal of the charges, the case should be reassigned to a different district judge? The appellate judges are interested in considering this option, as evidenced by another order they issued asking the lawyers to be prepared to address this topic. The logic might be that, with the judge having been forced—albeit by Flynn’s lawyers—into the unusual posture of having to become a party in the adversarial mandamus proceedings, even to the point of being represented by counsel, assuming an impartial role back in the district court may be difficult.
The Flynn case has become about much more than Michael Flynn. It’s become, as Katyal and I explained, the most concrete instantiation of President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr’s assault on federal law enforcement and attempt to portray it as the villain. What’s more, the Flynn episode has become emblematic of the claim Trump and Barr insist on making repeatedly that somehow federal law enforcement acted improperly in 2016 when it tried to investigate counterintelligence threats to the United States that, ultimately, proved all too real. But, on Tuesday, all of that will be merely the backdrop. The spotlight will be on the law. And it’s worth Americans listening carefully for what ten judges will be saying as they grapple with what particular areas of law that intersect in this unusual matter mean for the next steps in the Flynn case.
https://www.justsecurity.org/71936/what ... n-tuesday/
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Honestly, imagine what we would have found if o d did not block 99.9% of the evidence and testimony!
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27140
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:24 pmYou would have to ask MD to explain that one. That is a mind boggling thing I don't understand to this day.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:18 pmYes. So republicans had plenty of opportunities to pick someone else.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 2:14 pmCorrect me if I am wrong, I remember like 16 other Republican chuckleheads out there running against trump when the primaries started.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:37 amTrump ran unopposed in the Republican primaries, silly man?tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:35 amYour Party gave you Hillary...silly man.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:33 amThey sure do!!tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:29 am"elections have consequences" Blame your Party.seacoaster wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 9:09 amYeah, thanks for posting. This is a piece of gross and servile propaganda, which would be funny except for the fact that the Attorney General is the interviewee, whose whole purpose is to broadly demonize an entire political party with cute allusions to political philosophies that sound highfalutin to the sort of listener Levin gets. "You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy." Jesus, this is just laughable and sad.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:46 amThanks for posting.Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 8:20 am These are two serious players, in spite of the Left's teen-girl histrionics. Mark Levin interviewing Bill Barr, with no one talking over one another, no one trying to 'reclaim time'. You get to understand actual law and actual philosophy. The differences between these two guys and what we have seen from our mainstream media and their preferred narrative is striking.
If you have the time and if you have half a synapse still firing in your head, I'd suggest you watch and listen. If you're a shrill partisan without the ability to learn any longer, probably best to skip it...it will merely anger you like an elementary age boy whose emotions preclude his ability to pay attention and so his brain malfunctions when asked to sit still and learn.
For those who are legitimately vested in America, I highly suggest a listen:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_3wXqf-ns
Republicans didn’t vote for Trump, Democrats did!
I am independent. You can look at my voting record. Won’t vote for a single Republican this time.
2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.
But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.
- MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 27140
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: The Politics of National Security
This is patently false, yet again a repetition of the false narrative 6ft.6ftstick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 8:39 amYou need to pay attention.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 3:25 pmThe part that you and your fellow DeepStaters don't want to hear is: YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY PROVE WHAT YOU ARE ALLEGING.tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2020 1:18 pma fan positioning himself to be wrong. It's all just SOP for our political parties these daysold salt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 10:23 pmHere we go again, the ultimate whataboutism excuse maker. Nothing that Trump did justifies the DoJ, FBI & IC abuses of power marshaled against Flynn, Papadop, Page, Trump & his campaign.a fan wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 6:14 pmSometimes we forget that only you and Pete get to dismiss what our government has done.old salt wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 5:25 pmThey'll dismiss it as just another tin foil hat conspiracy, without even reading itPeter Brown wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:10 pm Devastating article on Russiagate.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-spies ... ed-america
Might be a tad too long for the birdbrains here but such is life.
Amazing sone of these NATSEC people aren’t in jail right now.
Because few things are funnier than TrumpApologists lecturing their fellow Americans about ethics in American governance, and how important they are.
So sure, go ahead and tell us about ethical behavior in governance more.....we're just at the edge of our seats. Next thing you'll tell us, it's unethical to profit off of one's position in the Federal Government, right?
a fan, could it be you're just another cog in the resistance machine? The end justifies the means...
In congressional testimony under oath EVERY WITNESS said there was No evidence of any Russian Collusion. NONE
But those same people Along with Adam Schiff and committee democrats, would go out in front of the cameras and say Trump was a Russian Agent and they had ample evidence to prove it.
Durham is collecting the indictable parts of the Deepstate conspiracy but I would think the 4 years of proven lies might convince you of the truth.
I don't think you are stupid and simply don't understand the difference between the testimony and what you and your right wing media sources keep spouting. So, it's on purpose.
Re: The Politics of National Security
Yep, ~70% of Republicans did not want Trump in the first wave of the primaries and voted for someone else. One of the best examples of why we need to move to a ranked choice vote style system. People could vote their conscience without feeling like they're throwing their vote away or having to vote for the lesser of 2 evils.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:41 am The rational wing of the GOP was diffused across many candidates, never coalesced around one clear, moderate candidate, while the idiots and chumps and the haters were attracted immediately to Trump's celebrity and rhetorical anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim flourishes. As he gathered momentum, other haters who had backed candidates like Cruz rallied to Trump rather than oppose him. So, Trump kept winning primaries with less than a majority of GOP voters, until all others became irrelevant.
2016 was a 'change election', with any of the reasonable moderate R candidates who could win the national popular vote, eg Jeb or Kasich, left behind. Indeed these candidates would very likely have won both the popular vote and the Electoral College versus the Dem candidate Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton was uniquely capable of losing to Trump, someone who a majority of the country thought was not qualified, dishonest, disgusting. She brought unique baggage of her own, though was undoubtedly 'qualified'...voters cared far less about qualifications than simply "change" and disruption of the status quo.
But now they're faced with 4 years of demonstrated corruption and incompetence in governance.