Patterico's Pontifications

7/10/2020

Judge Sullivan Requests D.C. Circuit to Rehear Flynn Mandamus En Banc; UPDATE: Court of Appeals Issues Stay

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:24 am



Washington Post:

The legal saga of President Trump’s former national security adviser Michael Flynn continued Thursday when a judge asked the appeals court in Washington to revive his effort to scrutinize the Justice Department’s move to drop Flynn’s case.

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will now decide whether to take a second look at U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan’s plan to examine whether the government’s move to undo Flynn’s plea of guilty is in the public interest.

. . . .

In response, Sullivan’s attorneys told the court that while the panel majority’s opinion is couched as a fact-bound ruling, it marks a “dramatic break from precedent” that “threatens to turn ordinary judicial process upside down.”

That is correct. The opinion makes a mockery of the usual standard for mandamus, which is there to redress the harms to a petitioner only when there is “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires.” The court could not possibly know whether Flynn — the only party that sought relief (the Government did not) — could obtain the relief he desired (a dismissal) until Judge Sullivan was allowed to rule.

The full court should rehear the case. Whether they will is anyone’s guess. I’m on record saying they will, but it’s taking them a while.

Read Judge Sullivan’s brief here.

UPDATE: The Court of Appeals has stayed the proceedings and called for briefing (a completely standard move):

57 Responses to “Judge Sullivan Requests D.C. Circuit to Rehear Flynn Mandamus En Banc; UPDATE: Court of Appeals Issues Stay”

  1. Seems rather odd, Wonder why Sullivan is so obsessed with prosecuting someone the DoJ doesn’t want to prosecute. I suppose Sullivan’s just playing politics, and thinks he’s hurting Trump some how. As for the DC Circuit, its dominated by Liberal/Leftists who hate Trump too, so I assume they’ll rule for Sullivan, since with Lefties their politics always top the law and justice.

    Someone on the web thought Sullivan’s last minute appeal meant the Circuit judges were reluctant to take the case. Wrong! This is just part of the delay tactics, I’m sure Sullivan is coordinating this with the Left-wing judges on the DC Circuit. So assuming Sullivan is allowed to go back to his original plan, I guess the next step will be a hearing in a month, then another hearing, and then another, until its past November and Trump is forced to pardon Flynn or leave his to the mercy of Biden.

    rcocean (fcc23e)

  2. You forgot to work lizard people from Jupiter’s moon into your unsupported conspiracy theories.

    Time123 (306531)

  3. If you take DOJ’s motion at face value, there’s reason to believe the prosecution was the product of unethical and possibly illegal behavior that DOJ is now trying to sweep under the rug by simply dropping the case.

    If you don’t take DOJ’s motion at face value, there’s reason to believe dropping the prosecution is the product of unethical and possibly illegal behavior that DOJ is trying to shield from scrutiny by claiming absolute and non-reviewable discretion.

    In either event, it is entirely appropriate for Sullivan to want to hold DOJ’s feet to the fire for making a mockery of his courtroom one way or another, and the panel majority’s conclusion that this somehow constitutes “irreparable harm” to DOJ, in addition to being legally irrelevant, entirely misses the point.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  4. he owes an apology to general flynn, and the prosecutors must not merely be reprimanded, but prosecuted and disbarred,

    narciso (7404b5)

  5. Vladeck’s exchange with a pro-Trump hyperpartisan went as expected.
    Sullivan should get his hearing, and he should prevail.

    Paul Montagu (cbbfc4)

  6. he owes an apology to general flynn, and the prosecutors must not merely be reprimanded, but prosecuted and disbarred,

    narciso (7404b5) — 7/10/2020 @ 9:17 am

    The DOJ appears to be implying that the previous prosecutors did unethical things. They’re not outright saying that.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  7. he owes an apology to general flynn, and the prosecutors must not merely be reprimanded, but prosecuted and disbarred

    Who is the “he” here? Judge Sullivan? Because you realize he can’t do diddly squat to the prosecutors if he’s required to grant the motion to dismiss without further proceedings, right?

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  8. he owes an apology to general flynn, and the prosecutors must not merely be reprimanded, but prosecuted and disbarred,

    narciso (7404b5) — 7/10/2020 @ 9:17 am

    When investigating crimes is treated as committing crimes, what’s that say about our leader?

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  9. Prosecution of imaginary crimes requires a quick resolution.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  10. Can’t trust a judge with a soul patch. Unserious.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  11. Well we can kick it up to the supreme court, as it was with powells previous case, arthur andersen was dead by that time. But those are the breaks

    Narciso (7404b5)

  12. Of course we saw with this garbage with scoooter libby and reginald walton.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  13. Flynn… Stone… track 29; boys, give us a shine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3gsPBTmbRo

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  14. The current DOJ prosecutors filed a pleading that specifically said:

    “The government disclosed approximately 25 pages of documents in April and May 2020 as the result of an independent review of this case by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri,” the brief stated in a footnote. “While those documents, along with other recently available information . . . are relevant to the government’s discretionary decision to dismiss this case, the government’s motion is not based on defendant Flynn’s broad allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. Flynn’s allegations are unfounded and provide no basis for impugning the prosecutors from the D.C. United States Attorney’s Office.

    DRJ (aede82)

  15. The “other recently available information” may be referring to the recently produced Strzk et al notes that the DOJ produced this week and Flynn’s attorney filed with a Supplemental Motion to Dismiss today.

    DRJ (aede82)

  16. Waited till the last possible moment to file this request. But it’s all on the up and up. I swear. /s

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  17. Let’s just imagine that Biden will be president soon. And that he has a lot of similarly troublesome relationships abroad, particularly through his son, but probably well beyond that. Do we really want Team R’s position on misconduct to be based on defending Trump today?

    Trump’s a sunk cost. We need to think about the future.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  18. Waited till the last possible moment to file this request. But it’s all on the up and up. I swear. /s

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 7/10/2020 @ 11:24 am

    Well we did just get that Supreme Court decision that the executive branch is not above the law. If that was about a democrat, we would all agree it was shameful that we needed to ask if that was so.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  19. @16: We know when prosecutorial misconduct happens, because that’s when the DOJ impugns DOJ prosecutors. Right, DRJ?

    When, exactly, has that ever happened? What penalties did the Stevens prosecutors suffer, for example?

    beer ‘n pretzels (8d47e8)

  20. They were reversed, the whistleblower chad joy was forced out, the chief witnesses handler mary beth kempner remained with the bureau.

    Narciso (7404b5)

  21. Let’s just imagine that Biden will be president soon. And that he has a lot of similarly troublesome relationships abroad, particularly through his son, but probably well beyond that. Do we really want Team R’s position on misconduct to be based on defending Trump today?

    Trump’s a sunk cost. We need to think about the future.

    Dustin (b62cc4) — 7/10/2020 @ 11:26 am

    Everyone will switch sides as soon as it’s convenient.

    Republican’s will be fully devoted to federalism, fiscal discipline, congressional oversight and the need to bi-partisan agreement.

    Democrats will re-discover the importance of executive privilege and forget all of the above. Except fiscal discipline which they’ve never cared about.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  22. Everyone will switch sides as soon as it’s convenient.

    If Trump isn’t currently surveilling Biden’s campaign, isn’t filing bogus FISA warrants, isn’t altering evidence in those warrants, isn’t leaking classified information to kickstart an investigation, isn’t selectively pursuing Logan Act violations, etc., I’m sure he’ll be given credit for not conveniently switching positions.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8d47e8)

  23. 25… unfair throwing heat like that at a T-baller…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  24. ‘We need to think about the future.’

    With Biden? You’re joking…

    “Eckhardt- think about the future.” – Jack Napier [Jack Nicholson] ‘Batman’ 1989

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  25. Everyone will switch sides as soon as it’s convenient.

    If Trump isn’t currently surveilling Biden’s campaign, isn’t filing bogus FISA warrants, isn’t altering evidence in those warrants, isn’t leaking classified information to kickstart an investigation, isn’t selectively pursuing Logan Act violations, etc., I’m sure he’ll be given credit for not conveniently switching positions.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8d47e8) — 7/10/2020 @ 12:03 pm

    @ me when someone brings evidence to support the things you believe are true. Because none of the investigations so far have managed to do that. Shoot, one of the IG report actually faulted the FBI for not keeping the WH in the loop.

    Time123 (306531)

  26. If Trump isn’t currently surveilling Biden’s campaign, isn’t filing bogus FISA warrants, isn’t altering evidence in those warrants, isn’t leaking classified information to kickstart an investigation, isn’t selectively pursuing Logan Act violations, etc., I’m sure he’ll be given credit for not conveniently switching positions.

    Yes, all due praise to the guy who unlawfully withheld military aid from Ukraine in a failed effort to coerce an investigation into his presumptive opponent for taking a consistent and principled opposition towards hijacking the apparatus of the state towards partisan political ends.

    The fundamental problem with the “witchhunt” narrative is that according to Trump’s own intellectual enablers, the Obama administration would have been well within its rights to do even the absolute worst things of which it is accused, so get your conspiratorial nonsense out of here.

    (Not That) Bill O'Reilly (6bb12a)

  27. If Trump isn’t currently surveilling Biden’s campaign, isn’t filing bogus FISA warrants, isn’t altering evidence in those warrants, isn’t leaking classified information to kickstart an investigation, isn’t selectively pursuing Logan Act violations, etc., I’m sure he’ll be given credit for not conveniently switching positions.

    beer ‘n pretzels (8d47e8) — 7/10/2020 @ 12:03 pm

    He was impeached for going after the Biden campaign, albeit not in the way you described. No, Trump will not be given credit for fairness in this election. har har har

    With Biden? You’re joking…

    I think it’s you who is typically joking when Biden comes up. And indeed, Biden is a joke and worthy of a lot of joking. But he’s not as stupid, nor is his staff, and Trump’s an opportunity if you’re cynical about how things have shifted for Republicans and ethics.

    Everyone will switch sides as soon as it’s convenient.

    Republican’s will be fully devoted to federalism, fiscal discipline, congressional oversight and the need to bi-partisan agreement.

    Democrats will re-discover the importance of executive privilege and forget all of the above. Except fiscal discipline which they’ve never cared about.

    Time123 (69b2fc) — 7/10/2020 @ 11:53 am

    Obviously you’re right they will try, but expect your ears to bleed from how many examples of bad spending, awful foreign policy performance, or conflicts of interest are shut down with BUT TRUMP. And to me, this is somewhat persuasive. What credibility does Lindsey Graham have on anything?

    Pendulum Binary Choice thinkers will recognize this is an opportunity for Team R, I guess. I’m not worried about that.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  28. when someone brings evidence to support the things you believe are true

    Ah ok, let’s test that theory out.

    1. Evidence altered in the Carter Page warrants. Didn’t happen? Y/N
    2. Classified information leaked illegally to WaPo to revive the Flynn investigation. Didn’t happen? Y/N
    3. Logan Act selectively used after a hiatus of how many centuries? Didn’t happen? Y/N
    4. Steele dossier used, abused, and passed around like a ho b*tch. Didn’t happen? Y/N
    5. Stefan Halper and Azra Turk. Fake made up zombies? Y/N

    Looking forward to your direct answers, Time123.

    beer ‘n pretzels (aee173)

  29. @27 I mean, Trump is literally trying to endanger the lives of me and many of the people I know by forcing the CDC to water down school opening guidelines and by trying to force schools to reopen willy-nilly regardless of local conditions by threatening to withhold funding, all in the name of the stock market. Biden is not doing this, so my future seems likely to be more secure (like, not involving 6 feet of dirt piled on top of me kind of secure) under Biden. Cake or Death? Cake, please. Dry cake? Cake, please. Cake flavored with liver and onions? Cake, please. Cake made of sawdust? Cake, please.

    Nic (896fdf)

  30. @32: Distance learning is a joke. As a parent, I know this. If I’m going to do the bulk of the teachers’ jobs, and the kids aren’t physically in school, they need the same level of funding for what exactly? PERS?

    beer ‘n pretzels (aee173)

  31. beer ‘n pretzels (aee173) — 7/10/2020 @ 1:44 pm

    Don’t worry. The teacher’s unions have a plan that only requires more funding.

    frosty (f27e97)

  32. Flynn wasn’t indicted for crimes involving the Logan Act but acting like it has never been investigated in 200+ years is not true. The Logan Act has a long investigative and political history in which it has been used frequently.

    DRJ (aede82)

  33. @33 Distance learning done correctly requires a hellacious lot of prep that in-person teaching doesn’t require. My teachers were, for example, providing both physical and electronic copies (which they often were having to create on the spot) of all written material, doing multiple zoom meetings a day, including both teaching sessions and individual tutoring (often during their personal time) making individual contacts with both parents and students (an unfortunate number were not attending zoom teaching sessions), providing physical and electronic copies of class notes for students who did not attend or did not take notes, and doing tech support, along with normal grading, etc. Your district may have struggled with that and not been on top of things as much, IDK, but creating an whole new delivery method and contact system on the fly with little to no access to normal resources isn’t exactly easy.

    Beyond that, however, there are a number of different plans that districts are implementing in order to increase safety as well and reintroduce in-person instructional minutes for the new school year. Again, it is possible that your district has been struggling with this, it is also not easy and I have personally spent large chunks of time in zoom meetings trying to has out a plan, but it is happening.

    Trump is trying to bigfoot all that local work and endanger lives.

    @34 Yeah, because school districts aren’t going to have budget cuts next year. Oh, wait, we are.

    Nic (896fdf)

  34. OoooH Oooh I’ll go

    Ah ok, let’s test that theory out.

    1. Evidence altered in the Carter Page warrants. Didn’t happen? Y/N Although Horwitz said it didn’t affect the justification of original FISA warrant
    2. Classified information leaked illegally to WaPo to revive the Flynn investigation. Didn’t happen? Y/N
    3. Logan Act selectively used after a hiatus of how many centuries? Didn’t happen? Y/N
    4. Steele dossier used, abused, and passed around like a ho b*tch. Didn’t happen? Y/N And?
    5. Stefan Halper and Azra Turk. Fake made up zombies? Y/N No, what’s your point?

    Horwitz investigated all of these conspiracy delusions and debunked them, the FBI guy who changed an email was prosecuted, but as Horwitz said it had no effect on the FISA warrant.

    John Duram was then assigned to re-re-review this for “scandal”, and he, just yesterday as noted above, has said there will be no report this year, no prosecutions, nothing.

    Maybe Barr will assign someone else to re-re-re-review it, because the answer that keeps coming back is that Trump, Barr, and conspiracy enthusiasts are just lying.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  35. Ah ok, let’s test that theory out.

    1. Evidence altered in the Carter Page warrants. Didn’t happen? Y/N

    Yes, they’ve been charged and there is currently no evidence that Obama or any senior leaders of the DOJ were involved. Agreed with the latter part?

    2. Classified information leaked illegally to WaPo to revive the Flynn investigation. Didn’t happen? Y/N

    No, please show me the indictment, statement by the DOJ or IG report that supports the accusation that a crime was committed for this purpose.

    3. Logan Act selectively used after a hiatus of how many centuries? Didn’t happen? Y/N

    Flynn wasn’t prosecuted for Logan act investigation and CI provides a reasonable justification for the interview.

    4. Steele dossier used, abused, and passed around like a ho b*tch. Didn’t happen? Y/N

    Don’t see how that’s relevant to an accusation that Obama was involved in some wrong doing.

    5. Stefan Halper and Azra Turk. Fake made up zombies? Y/N

    They’re real people, but there’s no evidence they were part of an illegal plot by Obama, or any high ranking member of his administration. Please show me an indictment, IG report, or other official finding to that shows they were.

    Looking forward to your direct answers back with the information, beer ‘n pretzels.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  36. But [Biden] he’s not as stupid, nor is his staff, and Trump’s an opportunity if you’re cynical about how things have shifted for Republicans and ethics.

    Except he is. This is Plagiarist JoeyBee’s third run for POTUS in his 40-plus years as a Washington political hack.

    Trump won on his first try. The biggest mistake everybody ha made about The Donald throughout his public and private life— is underestimating him.

    ________

    Distance learning is a joke.

    Funny stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cYzkyXp0jg

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  37. Trump won on his first try.

    Not true.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2000_presidential_campaign

    This is Plagiarist JoeyBee’s third run for POTUS in his 40-plus years as a Washington political hack.

    Good point but he is running against Benedict Donald.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  38. no evidence that Obama or any senior leaders of the DOJ were involved. Agreed with the latter part?

    No. Clinesmith left a document trail of highly biased opinions regarding Trump in DOJ communications, but remained on Midyear Exam and Crossfire Hurricane. As biased as the Mueller team was, he at least was mindful of overt bias and booted Stzrok and Page. Obama’s senior leaders left Clinesmith on.

    No, please show me the indictment, statement by the DOJ or IG report that supports the accusation that a crime was committed for this purpose.

    Disingenuous. A specific name is needed for an indictment, of course. That’s not known. There are many possibilities, but do you honestly think it isn’t someone affiliated with the Obama administration? I’m asking, because I expect an honest answer.

    Flynn wasn’t prosecuted for Logan act investigation

    Who was, in the past 150 years? Nobody was even considered for a Logan Act violation as a pretext, and discussed in a WH meeting no less, since when exactly?

    They’re real people, but there’s no evidence they were part of an illegal plot by Obama

    I didn’t allege illegality. I was responding to your point about parties switching positions. Who are the Halper and Turk of Trump’s administration?

    beer ‘n pretzels (245517)

  39. beer ‘n pretzels, I’m taking this seriously and giving you honest answers. If it seems like I’m being disingenuous please give me the benefit of the doubt that it’s unintentional, poor communication on my part. I’ll do the same.

    no evidence that Obama or any senior leaders of the DOJ were involved [in modifying the email and deceiving the FISA court-added for clairity]. Agreed with the latter part?

    No. Clinesmith left a document trail of highly biased opinions regarding Trump in DOJ communications, but remained on Midyear Exam and Crossfire Hurricane. As biased as the Mueller team was, he at least was mindful of overt bias and booted Stzrok and Page. Obama’s senior leaders left Clinesmith on.

    We’re getting off track. Probably due to me trying to be brief, I made an addition to clarify. Your initial question was around the illegal alteration of evidence submitted to the FISA court. I believe that happened (IG report and indictment) but AFAIK only one person is accused of being involved. Do you see it it otherwise?

    No, please show me the indictment, statement by the DOJ or IG report that supports the accusation that a crime was committed for this purpose.

    Disingenuous. A specific name is needed for an indictment, of course. That’s not known. There are many possibilities, but do you honestly think it isn’t someone affiliated with the Obama administration? I’m asking, because I expect an honest answer.

    You’re saying that the Obama administration broke the law by legally providing information to WAPO to re-start the Flynn investigation. I’m saying that you don’t have evidence to support your theory. I’m not saying your theory is wrong, or even implausible. Just that there isn’t evidence despite multiple investigations.

    Flynn wasn’t prosecuted for Logan act investigation

    Who was, in the past 150 years? Nobody was even considered for a Logan Act violation as a pretext, and discussed in a WH meeting no less, since when exactly?

    I believe that the FBI was running a counter intelligence investigation around criminal acts by the Russian government in the 2016 election. I think the believed the Trump campaign was infiltrated or being infiltrated by Russian assets and that Flynn was suspected of being involved in some way and that the investigation of him was in support of this. I also think this was a reasonable suspicion in the fall of 2016, but YMMV. Finally, I think the Meuller investigation was thorough and that if evidence of this existed he would have found it.

    They’re real people, but there’s no evidence they were part of an illegal plot by Obama

    I didn’t allege illegality. I was responding to your point about parties switching positions. Who are the Halper and Turk of Trump’s administration?

    What is it you allege them to have done exactly? What evidence do you have to support that allegation?

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  40. @41. A bit of a fudge given Reform was hardly a major party effort. Knocking off 15 or 16 seasoned GOP candidates beginning w/an escalator ride should tell you a lot. Don’t underestimate him– or the level of support lurking for him. There’s nothing for a ‘silent marjority’ voter to gain by admitting to a big, bad, media-sponsored pollster they’re going to vote for Trump. They’ll just do it. The electorate is for sale– especially if Trump and McConnell cough up another round of Covid-19 checks close to Election Day.

    Mitch, Donald… buy my vote. Please!

    ‘Love For Sale’ -Cole Porter, 1930

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  41. I believe that happened (IG report and indictment) but AFAIK only one person is accused of being involved. Do you see it it otherwise?

    1) One person, a key person in the investigation, left in place by the administration, is accused. 2) all warrants are reviewed by senior officials, and this one passed that check. I guess the buck stops elsewhere. But, having been treated to four years of (insert name here, Papadopoulos, Stone, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Page) did X, therefore Trump is implicated, peddling a “only one person is accused” narrative now is rather quaint.

    You’re saying that the Obama administration broke the law by legally providing information to WAPO to re-start the Flynn investigation.

    No, it was illegal. Not legal. Clearly. Are you disputing this? And, Ignatius, who knows who the leaker is says in his article “senior administration official”. Seriously, what are you disputing here? We don’t know the name. Are you going to cling to that to dispute everything else we know?

    What is it you allege them to have done exactly?

    I clearly stated that they surveilled on an opposition campaign. Nothing more. You clearly implied in your response that that wasn’t true or that there isn’t sufficient evidence to support what I contend. How was I supposed to read that any other way? It may or may not be legal, but my charge is certainly true. And, it is definitely something that if Trump were doing right now to Biden, the howling would be nonstop. Again, your point was about switching positions out of political convenience.

    You made a claim @28 that is simply nonsense. Whether you want to retract any of it is up to you.

    beer ‘n pretzels (9a8c11)

  42. I believe that happened (IG report and indictment) but AFAIK only one person is accused of being involved. Do you see it it otherwise?

    1) One person, a key person in the investigation, left in place by the administration, is accused. 2) all warrants are reviewed by senior officials, and this one passed that check. I guess the buck stops elsewhere. But, having been treated to four years of (insert name here, Papadopoulos, Stone, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, Page) did X, therefore Trump is implicated, peddling a “only one person is accused” narrative now is rather quaint.

    I’m going to accept that this means you agree that we only have evidence against Clinesmith because you’re not disputing that anymore. I’m glad he’s being prosecuted FWIW.

    You’re saying that the Obama administration broke the law by legally providing information to WAPO to re-start the Flynn investigation.

    No, it was illegal. Not legal. Clearly. Are you disputing this? And, Ignatius, who knows who the leaker is says in his article “senior administration official”. Seriously, what are you disputing here? We don’t know the name. Are you going to cling to that to dispute everything else we know?

    dang it, I meant Illegal and typed it wrong. My bad. But this is clearly another one where you don’t have evidence. Again you might be right, but you might not.

    What is it you allege them to have done exactly?

    I clearly stated that they surveilled on an opposition campaign. Nothing more. You clearly implied in your response that that wasn’t true or that there isn’t sufficient evidence to support what I contend. How was I supposed to read that any other way? It may or may not be legal, but my charge is certainly true. And, it is definitely something that if Trump were doing right now to Biden, the howling would be nonstop. Again, your point was about switching positions out of political convenience.

    You made a claim @28 that is simply nonsense. Whether you want to retract any of it is up to you.

    I guess i need to be very careful with my pro-nouns. I’ll try again. What is it you allege Halper and Turk to have done? What is your evidence to support this?

    You have a lot of theories, but you don’t have evidence.

    Time123 (69b2fc)

  43. bit of a fudge given Reform was hardly a major party effort.

    You’re right, DCSCA. Trump’s first run for president was truly pathetic.

    Don’t underestimate him– or the level of support lurking for him.

    He’s the leader of the free world, working hand in hand with the USA’s most powerful enemies. I agree we cannot underestimate him. Trump could be president next year. It will not be because most voters said he should be. I am certain of that.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  44. But this is clearly another one where you don’t have evidence.

    I take this as evidence that you are simply arguing in bad faith, and cut my losses, as in lost time and effort.

    beer ‘n pretzels (7b79e1)

  45. B&P, I’m sorry you feel I was arguing in bad faith. I wasn’t. I honestly don’t think what you referred to is evidence that of what you originally claimed.

    Time123 (a61c84)

  46. I take this as evidence that you are simply arguing in bad faith, and cut my losses, as in lost time and effort.

    I take this as evidence that Time has again asked you to supply a supporting data independent of your personal claim, and instead of doing so, you have decided that you don’t want to play the game if people keep asking you to provide the most basic support for said claim.

    Where’s the supporting claim from Horwitz? Where’s the supporting claim from John Durham? It was their tasks to find it, and they have not, so why should your opinion have be taken with even a grain of salt?

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (305827)

  47. It will not be because most voters said he should be. I am certain of that.

    Which is precisely what occurred w/his first win.

    I am certain of that.

    As is Hillary. 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  48. Very true. Most American voters rejected Trump by millions, and will do so again. But for a slavery era gobbledygook law, the fact Trump can’t actually win most voters over would decide the contest.

    And Trump’s inability to beat Hillary, at least in the popularity contest department, is incredible. He must be deeply unpopular to fail to someone as loathed for decades as Hillary was.

    Trump’s many embarrassing failures have validated, indeed irritated, the frustration of the majority of Americans. After all, we had our say. We said no.

    Dustin (b62cc4)

  49. UPDATE: The Court of Appeals has stayed the proceedings and called for briefing (a completely standard move):

    Patterico (115b1f)

  50. But this is clearly another one where you don’t have evidence.

    I take this as evidence that you are simply arguing in bad faith, and cut my losses, as in lost time and effort.

    beer ‘n pretzels (7b79e1) — 7/10/2020 @ 5:45 pm

    Had some time on the road to think about this a little. I feel like was wrong to an extent. I had too high a bar for ‘evidence’. You were providing some evidence, such as the wapo pc. I was rejecting that because it wasn’t ‘proof’. I still think that many of the things you listed are lacking in any real evidence. But not all of them. I also think the evidence that is there doesn’t prove what you assert happened. But it’s not totally baseless.

    Time123 (80b471)

  51. what some comrades do not seem to understand is that the only person who is indispensable is mr. president donald trump, who would have seven or maybe eleven noble prizes if the noble committee was based in appalachia and not scandinavia

    butt gerbils like michael flynn and roger stone are a dime a dozen

    they come to washington, dc by the busload to be the toadies of one person or another

    save your love for mr. president donald trump and mr. president donald trump only

    for he too shall pass

    and there will always be a line of people looking to be the ones to hand him the toilet paper

    nk (1d9030)

  52. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/07/in-the-flynn-case-more-exculpatory-evidence.php

    The case brought by Team Mueller in the name of the United States against Michael Flynn constitutes a sidebar to the biggest political scandal in American history by far. While the United States now seeks to dismiss the case, Judge Sullivan resists. His resistance now extends to the The D.C. Circuit opinion granting Flynn’s petition for a writ of mandamus ordering him to dismiss the case.

    While the D.C. Circuit mulls over Sullivan’s petition for en banc review of the court’s mandamus order, the government continues to produce previously undisclosed exculpatory material to General Flynn. Reminder: Attorney General Barr assigned United States Attorney Jeffrey Jensen the task of reviewing the government’s file in the Flynn matter. Jensen’s review has resulted in several productions of exculpatory evidence that prosecutors acting on behalf of the United States should previously have turned over to Flynn.

    What we have here is a sickening disgrace from which the press averts its eyes like Victorians confronting a public display of sex. At every step along the way, the press acted as a co-conspirator with the perpetrators inside the FBI and the Obama administration. You can understand why they might not be inclined to look back or confess and repent their wrongdoing. They look forward to the Biden Ministry of Truth depositing it down the memory hole.

    The process is the punishment. This trial is a disgrace to our Constitution.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  53. After all, we had our say. We said no.

    Americans who won’t accept the results of fair elections may be the biggest internal threat to the republic.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

Leave a Reply

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3706 secs.