More on the Flynn case

[Rightguide]

Originally Posted by HisArpy View Post
It's an interesting issue.

I'm of the opinion that the en banc will be denied with the case remanded back to a different judge for the mandated dismissal. Sullivan will be "retired" within a year and will go on the "woke lecture circuit".


Good call, Matlock.

In Harpy's defense, this is a Democrat dominated court who's majority is ready to abandon its own case law and the guidance of the SCOTUS in order to achieve a political result.

 

[HisArpy]

Good call, Matlock.

It was my OPINION based on the fact that en banc hearings are rare and almost never granted.

I am not infallible. I have never claimed to be infallible.


P.S. PLEASE learn how to not fuck up quoting someone. It's like you're stupid or something...

 

[HisArpy]

In Harpy's defense, this is a Democrat dominated court who's majority is ready to abandon its own case law and the guidance of the SCOTUS in order to achieve a political result.

All they're going to do is force the Government to re-argue it's position and have the Defense agree with them.

At some point even a dunderhead has to understand that when the government says it uncovered evidence that the prosecution was politically motivated and consists of fabricated evidence, the case should be dismissed forthwith.

The en banc court will either figure that out themselves or SCOTUS will tell them.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Looks like Flynn is starting to spill the beans about why he as targeted. Seems he was about to audit John Brennan's shifting of billions of dollars off the books. Oh my.

I have no specific information about these suspicions, but the secrecy necessary for intelligence and counter-intelligence work, when combined with the practice of employing outside contractors for classified work, opens the door to potential financial corruption, simply because secrecy can block auditors from effective investigation and action. Sidney Powell has tremendous credibility, and she would not be mentioning this if there were not a factual and evidentiary basis, in my opinion.

The oft repeated lie. There is NO BASIS

 

[Adre]

It was my OPINION based on the fact that en banc hearings are rare and almost never granted.

I am not infallible. I have never claimed to be infallible.


P.S. PLEASE learn how to not fuck up quoting someone. It's like you're stupid or something...

Well, you’re very happy telling other people how wrong they are in your condescending way. I thought you could take it as well. I see that you can’t.

 

[HisArpy]

Well, you’re very happy telling other people how wrong they are in your condescending way. I thought you could take it as well. I see that you can’t.

dudly, you're about as fucking dumb as dumb can get.

NO ONE can predict the future actions of other people, all you can do is guess and sometimes you guess wrong.

But, when people like YOU gloat about it, it shows YOUR LACK OF CHARACTER more than anything else. Pointing that out isn't telling you that you're wrong, it's telling you that you're lowlife scum.

If you can't deal with that, the door is thataway ------>

 

[Adre]

dudly, you're about as fucking dumb as dumb can get.

NO ONE can predict the future actions of other people, all you can do is guess and sometimes you guess wrong.

But, when people like YOU gloat about it, it shows YOUR LACK OF CHARACTER more than anything else. Pointing that out isn't telling you that you're wrong, it's telling you that you're lowlife scum.

If you can't deal with that, the door is thataway ------>

You’d think a lawyer could argue a point with out resorting to personal insult and childish name calling. Well, a good lawyer could.

 

[surdeep]

Flynn is a True Patriot.

He even pretended to be Putin's dinner and speaking engagement pal as part of his secret infiltration of Russian Corruption.

 

[Rightguide]

I have no specific information about these suspicions, but the secrecy necessary for intelligence and counter-intelligence work, when combined with the practice of employing outside contractors for classified work, opens the door to potential financial corruption, simply because secrecy can block auditors from effective investigation and action. Sidney Powell has tremendous credibility, and she would not be mentioning this if there were not a factual and evidentiary basis, in my opinion.

The oft repeated lie. There is NO BASIS

You might have put some quotes around that post.

 

[HisArpy]

You’d think a lawyer could argue a point with out resorting to personal insult and childish name calling. Well, a good lawyer could.

You'd think that even someone as fucking stupid as you are could figure out that me saying you're a fucking asshole IS the fucking point.

But can you do that?


Noooooooooooo, you're too fucking stupid to even get it when it's pointed out to you directly.

 

[Rightguide]

All they're going to do is force the Government to re-argue it's position and have the Defense agree with them.

At some point even a dunderhead has to understand that when the government says it uncovered evidence that the prosecution was politically motivated and consists of fabricated evidence, the case should be dismissed forthwith.

The en banc court will either figure that out themselves or SCOTUS will tell them.

Meanwhile the General is put through months of additional judicial and economic torture.

 

[Adre]

You'd think that even someone as fucking stupid as you are could figure out that me saying you're a fucking asshole IS the fucking point.

But can you do that?


Noooooooooooo, you're too fucking stupid to even get it when it's pointed out to you directly.

You’re such a loser.

 

[Rightguide]

Well, you’re very happy telling other people how wrong they are in your condescending way. I thought you could take it as well. I see that you can’t.

Lots of knowledgeable people were wrong. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of American jurisprudence. Especially a Circuit Court granting an en banc review of a petition from a district judge who has no authority or standing to do so. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure “only a ‘party’ may petition for rehearing en banc,” and Sullivan is not a party under those rules. He has no court authorization either, a district court can only address the petition for mandamus if invited or ordered by the higher court. The Circuit Court extended no such invitation to the District Court. Federal statute and Supreme Court precedent require Sullivan to get the permission of the Solicitor General in order to file a petition for re-hearing. No such permission was sought or granted. So to put it mildly, this case is a bit out of the ordinary.

 

[HisArpy]

You’re such a loser.

Which is about twenty quadrillion times better than being a fucking asshole like you are.

Honestly, dudly,, if that's the best you've got, go back to playing with your dolls.

 

[HisArpy]

Lots of knowledgeable people were wrong. Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of American jurisprudence. Especially a Circuit Court granting an en banc review of a petition from a district judge who has no authority or standing to do so. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure “only a ‘party’ may petition for rehearing en banc,” and Sullivan is not a party under those rules. He has no court authorization either, a district court can only address the petition for mandamus if invited or ordered by the higher court. The Circuit Court extended no such invitation to the District Court. Federal statute and Supreme Court precedent require Sullivan to get the permission of the Solicitor General in order to file a petition for re-hearing. No such permission was sought or granted. So to put it mildly, this case is a bit out of the ordinary.

The case has become a political hot potato with everyone hoping it won't come their way yet holding their hands out for it at the same time just so they can give their 2 cents.


Sullivan is doing EXACTLY what people bitch about - he's trying to legislate from the bench by having the higher court "create" a new rule of Federal Procedure.

Think about the precedent this sets when a higher court orders a lower court to do something. Under this precedent, the lower court just requests an en banc hearing so that they don't have to comply.

Which is like asking dad for permission after mom already told you no.

 

[Rightguide]

The case has become a political hot potato with everyone hoping it won't come their way yet holding their hands out for it at the same time just so they can give their 2 cents.


Sullivan is doing EXACTLY what people bitch about - he's trying to legislate from the bench by having the higher court "create" a new rule of Federal Procedure.

Think about the precedent this sets when a higher court orders a lower court to do something. Under this precedent, the lower court just requests an en banc hearing so that they don't have to comply.

Which is like asking dad for permission after mom already told you no.

We've gone from a judicial system into the political system of law.

 

[Adre]

Maybe Dad has better judgement than Mom.

 

[Adre]

We've gone from a judicial system into the political system of law.

You can thank Barr for a large part of that.

 

[HisArpy]

You can thank Barr for a large part of that.

Still trying to prove you're a fucking imbecile I see.

 

[bellisarius]

If it weren't for the dangerous precedent it would set I'd tell the government to go ahead to trial and then prosecute the case so poorly, basically admitting that Flynn committed no crime, that the jury would be forced to acquit. The trial would be over in 2 days and there wouldn't be a damn thing Sullivan could do about it unless he wanted to compound his unfitness by acting as prosecutor from the bench.

 

[HisArpy]

We've gone from a judicial system into the political system of law.

Every social breakdown prior to military conflict has been preceded by exactly what has been happening in our judiciary of late.

When the law takes sides in political disagreement, it no longer is the law. Instead it is a tool to be used by whichever side controls it against the perceived enemy hiding amongst the populace.

It's called Balkanization. And it always has the same inevitable outcome.

 

[Rightguide]

You can thank Barr for a large part of that.

Bullshit, He didn't appoint Sullivan or the majority on the Circuit Court.

 

[bellisarius]

Every social breakdown prior to military conflict has been preceded by exactly what has been happening in our judiciary of late.

When the law takes sides in political disagreement, it no longer is the law. Instead it is a tool to be used by whichever side controls it against the perceived enemy hiding amongst the populace.

It's called Balkanization. And it always has the same inevitable outcome.

"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime" - Lavrentiy Beria

 

[HisArpy]

If it weren't for the dangerous precedent it would set I'd tell the government to go ahead to trial and then prosecute the case so poorly, basically admitting that Flynn committed no crime, that the jury would be forced to acquit. The trial would be over in 2 days and there wouldn't be a damn thing Sullivan could do about it unless he wanted to compound his unfitness by acting as prosecutor from the bench.

2 minutes after the jury was empaneled and sworn it would be over.

Court: "Mr. Prosecutor, call your first witness."

DOJ Attorney: "Your Honor, we have no witnesses."

Flynn's lawyer: "Your honor, the defense moves the court for a directed verdict of Not Guilty."


At that point it's over.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Every social breakdown prior to military conflict has been preceded by exactly what has been happening in our judiciary of late.

Stacking the courts with unqualified political hacks, as Trump has done?

So many judges ranked "unqualified" by the ABA (which you may or may not know is the American Bar Association).

But they do have the ideological "legislate from the bench" pedigree, as shown by their approval by the Federalist Society, which has long held that laws are too important to be enacted by elected representatives.