Patterico's Pontifications

9/14/2020

Judge Sullivan Should Deny the Government’s Motion to Dismiss

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:01 am



The conventional wisdom is that Judge Sullivan will use the occasion of the Michael Flynn hearing (currently set for September 29) to rant and rave about the Government’s conduct … and then he will grant the motion. I think the conventional wisdom is correct — but I think he should deny the motion.

The amicus’s recently filed brief makes the case very clearly. This post assumes you haven’t read the brief — which, you should — and summarizes the main arguments.

First, the Government claims there is not even a live case or controversy because the Government and Flynn agree about what should happen. The en banc court explicitly rejected that claim.

Next comes the issue of whether the Court has discretion to dismiss. The amicus, Judge Gleeson, hammers the Government hard about one simple fact: the claim that the “principal” aim of Rule 48 is protection of the defendant necessarily means there are other aims. He quotes D.C. Circuit precedent holding that “[a]lthough decisions not to prosecute may be immune from review, the same cannot be said of decisions to dispose of a pending case …” Past cases have made it clear that courts can scrutinize the Government’s motive without violating the separation of powers when the defendant objects — and the fact that the defendant might agree does not change the separation of powers issue, as the executive’s decision is still the executive’s in either case. This means the separation of powers does not preclude the court from scrutinizing the Government’s motives.

Gleeson argues that if the Government’s statement of reasons is deficient, or if there is evidence of gross abuse, either is a ground to deny a motion to dismiss. I have discussed this before in a post offering various hypotheticals, such as: the Government says “dismiss because we say so”; or the Government cites documentary evidence but refuses to share it with the Court. Such “showings” would be plainly insufficient. If the Government shared the documentary evidence with the Court and that evidence said the opposite of what the Government claimed it said, that too would justify denial of the motion, in my view.

Gleeson says: “As demonstrated by history, Rule 48(a)’s requirement that the Government explain itself exists partly to smoke out the corrupt dismissal of criminal charges against the politically well-connected precisely because they are well-connected.” He cites case law that gives as examples of illegitimate reasons dislike of the victim, or dissatisfaction with the empaneled jury. Surely a desire to benefit the president’s crony is no more legitimate.

The Government cites “materiality” as part of its justification for the motion to dismiss, but Gleeson notes that the Government misstates the standard of materiality in a way that directly contradicts the Government’s previous filings in the same case. Flynn’s statements were “capable of affecting” the FBI’s “general function” and the Government has not even tried to explain how they weren’t — which is unsurprising because it contradicts the Government’s stance in every other false statements case in the country. Not only that, Gleeson says, but the Government has said in the past that Flynn’s statements in fact did hinder an FBI investigation — and the judge has previously bought off on exactly that theory. The Government can’t just come along and yank that justification away (yoink!) without a convincing explanation — and it has provided none. The closest the Government has come is to pretend, disingenuously, that the real issue is whether the FBI was hindered in its investigation of Flynn’s own bad acts (it said the FBI was not hindered) rather than whether the FBI was hindered in its own overall national security investigation (and the Government has previously said the FBI was hindered on that score, and the Government cannot explain how now, all of a sudden, the FBI was not hindered). As Gleeson notes, this is a distortion of the materiality standard.

Remember the nonsensical Government stance in its initial motion that there was no predication for the original investigation? That laughable claim has now been jettisoned in favor of some discussion about a vague internal disagreement about “protocols.” Meanwhile, the Government now pretends that Flynn has to have been an “agent of Russia” when he made the statements for them to be material, which is a made-up standard they have never used elsewhere. The Government trots out other new justifications for the motion (e.g. the jury might not have liked our witnesses or the fact that the FBI agents already knew the answers to the questions they asked Flynn) which, Gleeson notes, is nothing more than a shifting rationale that indicates a pretext.

The Government now claims it would be difficult to show the statements were false — never addressing Flynn’s sworn statement that they were false. Of course, Flynn claims he entered the plea and made these statements because the Government threatened his son … but the Government denies that vociferously (and indeed, as I have discussed here before, the documentary evidence belies any such theory).

The elephant in the room, not even mentioned by the Government, is the way that Trump has always tried to get Flynn off the hook, starting with his private entreaties to James Comey to let Flynn go. Here is Gleeson’s powerful close to his brief:

Based entirely on evidence already in the public view, the only coherent explanation for the Government’s exceedingly irregular motion — as well as its demonstrable pretexts—is that the Justice Department has yielded to a pressure campaign led by the President for his political associate. This Court need not “exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free” by pretending otherwise. United States v. Stanchich, 550 F.2d 1294, 1300 (2d Cir. 1977). It should instead deny the government’s request for leave under Rule 48(a) and proceed to sentencing

I absolutely agree. I think Sullivan should go through this step by step, make factual findings about the lack of forthrightness on the part of the Government, and deny the motion. I don’t doubt that the D.C. Circuit would overrule him, but I think they would have to twist themselves into pretzels to explain why. This brief lays out an excellent road map for denying the motion and I defy anyone to actually read the whole thing and disagree.

209 Responses to “Judge Sullivan Should Deny the Government’s Motion to Dismiss”

  1. Please do we have to drag this out? We know how it ends.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  2. I mean, Lois Lerner is off collecting a fine pension somewhere. So is the guy who killed Mrs Weaver at Ruby Ridge as she held a baby. Going full Javert is unseemly here.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  3. Show me a case where both the government and the defense were in agreement to dismiss the case and the judge said, “nah.”

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  4. Judges do not have the divine right of kings. They are not above the law.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  5. We know how it ends.

    With another corrupt pardon the day after the election?

    Dave (1bb933)

  6. Perhaps the people of pornofornia could clean up the mess in their own state before voting for HUH/2020.

    mg (8cbc69)

  7. Is it true pornofornia is closing 2 prisons and freeing 20,000 prisoners?
    Leave the United States, Please.

    mg (8cbc69)

  8. The individual civil rights of Flynn, rooted in the 6th and 9th amendments, trump concerns of governmental failure to prosecute.

    As you can personally attest, the government, at all judicial levels and jurisdictions, use discretion in going to trial. Quite often, this is due to a doubt that a conviction can be obtained. A reasonable person could conclude that evidence disclosed after the plea would lead to acquittal. There is nothing particularly special about Flynn in this regard.

    How maddening it is for so many of us that Comey and the DOJ made this call in re HRC and the bleaching. We are furious that the same kid gloves are to be applied to the SCO folks who deleted their phone data. There is no recourse for us to bring the case to trial. DOJ has been invested with that authority. No judge can demand a prosecution of those weasels.

    Either the individual is sovereign or s/he is not. Proof, presented by duly constituted authorityin good faith, must be affirmed in a criminal court before liberty is taken away. With the new evidence, the government has declared it can no longer proceed in good faith. Case closed.

    Ed from SFV (f64387)

  9. The individual civil rights of Flynn, rooted in the 6th and 9th amendments, trump concerns of governmental failure to prosecute.

    Can you explain? He’s in the court of law, has a lawyer, and is part of corruption with the president who has attempted to make Flynn above the law. How are this powerful man’s civil rights being violated?

    Proof, presented by duly constituted authorityin good faith, must be affirmed in a criminal court before liberty is taken away.

    He pled guilty in court. He is guilty.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  10. there is no case, it’s like the purge trials, or freisler or ayatollah khalkali, so really what is the point, now peter strzok missed gospodin debbins, who is the equivalent of colonel whalen in the cold war era,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  11. “Unseemly” lol

    Leviticus (002f17)

  12. 3. Show me a case where both the government and the defense were in agreement to dismiss the case and the judge said, “nah.”

    NJRob

    OK. This.

    DRJ (aede82)

  13. The judge was reversed but note this from the reversal:

    State case law establishes that, prior to trial, prosecutors have the absolute right to enter a nolle prosequi “except possibly in instances of scandalous abuse of authority,” Gaziano said, quoting from a 1923 case.

    DRJ (aede82)

  14. Plus, that case involved mere charges. This case involves a guilty plea entered not once but twice.

    DRJ (aede82)

  15. Judges do not have the divine right of kings. They are not above the law.
    NJRob (eb56c3) — 9/14/2020 @ 12:34 am

    You’re begging the question.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  16. the last time andrew weissman prevailed, an entire accounting firm was destroyed, 40,000 employees, who was his boss christopher wray, it was proven at the supreme court, but like with mcdonnell, stevens and delay it was too late, the process is the punishment,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  17. Trump’s definition of loyalty is “What have you done for me lately?” It makes me wonder what the wheels within the wheels are.

    What could a disgruntled Flynn reveal about Trump? The Russians, famous for getting their compromised assets out, really pulling the strings?

    nk (1d9030)

  18. @post

    I defy anyone to actually read the whole thing and disagree.

    I disagree. But, you’d knew I say that.

    Gleeson’s screed is nothing more than trying to abuse the legal system in order to “get Trump”, but the end justifies the means.

    whembly (c30c83)

  19. @11

    He pled guilty in court. He is guilty.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 9/14/2020 @ 5:51 am

    He motioned to withdraw is plea.

    He’s not guilty.

    whembly (c30c83)

  20. you have to ask, how much did hsbc pay gleesons firm, to avoid prosecution, 100 million, like the fine against banamex is near beer, it took 3 1/2 years for sydney powell to get the evidence that no newspaper seemed interested in examining, sentence first,…investigation someday,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  21. He motioned to withdraw is plea.

    He’s not guilty.

    whembly (c30c83) — 9/14/2020 @ 7:06 am

    It’s nice that you’re so sure that a man who confessed, with substantial corroboration, is not guilty. If Flynn were not a part of Trump’s corrupt administration, but rather if Flynn were an opponent, you’d probably say the opposite.

    That’s the joy of being non-partisan. I would say the same thing of Flynn if he were Biden’s best friend.

    But OK, you’re sure this man is not guilty. If so, why all this panic to keep his case out of court? He has literally every advantage, but he can’t win without the DOJ being flipped.

    Remember, the democrats will have every lever of power Trump has innovated. We all benefit if guilty crooks go down, on both sides.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  22. But nk saw through the Trumpkins’ duplicity and said to them, “Show me a court order. Whose signature and seal are on it?”

    “The judge’s”, they answered.

    So nk told them, “Then let Judge Sullivan refuse to sign on to Barr’s corruption, and let some Trump appointees on the Court of Appeals do it instead.”

    nk (1d9030)

  23. nk (1d9030) — 9/14/2020 @ 7:31 am
    Ha!

    felipe (084d77)

  24. not when you’ve seen the transcripts, instead of the game of telephone from james baker to sally yates to david ignatius, what a souvlaki,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  25. whembly 24: He motioned to withdraw is plea.

    He’s not guilty.

    No. Check the court file. Flynn was charged on 11/30/2017 and he plead guilty on 12/1/2017. Two judges accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, first in December 2017 and again in December 2018. Both times Flynn acknowledged his guilt in court, and his plea was accepted. That legally and factually established his guilt, since he admitted the conduct.

    In May 2020, Flynn filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion is still pending. Merely filing a motion to withdraw does not undo his guilty plea or his guilt.

    DRJ (aede82)

  26. Gleeson’s screed is nothing more than trying to abuse the legal system in order to “get Trump”, but the end justifies the means.

    If that is true then it should be easy for you to analyze each point and discredit it. Please do so. Merely labeling it a screed is not persuasive.

    DRJ (aede82)

  27. fine you want to be that blind, after what ronnie earle wrought in texas, be that way,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  28. Too bad he couldn’t just defy the law and dismiss his case the way the fifteen Mueller coup weasels dismissed their phone memories.

    End this farce and bring the real criminals to justice.
    _

    harkin (cd4502)

  29. we had janet reno, and the infamous fuster witchhunt, and the selective prosecution of ‘the hot suits’ case, who was not prosecuted her top aide, donald graham, who followed her to main justice, where he was the intelligence community liason, I can’t make this up,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  30. they all leak to schmidt, ignatius, entous et al, what would they do for a living otherwise,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  31. The best remedy for any misconduct is transparency that comes from public process. Flynn plead guilty in court. Ronnie Earle was publicly rebuked by the appeals court. Do you really prefer a corrupt partisan system to that, narciso?

    DRJ (aede82)

  32. yes we have the transcript, that shows the prosecutors were manifestly unethical, sullivan has proven he is complicit with them, and we know what shirt gleeson wears,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  33. @26

    He motioned to withdraw is plea.

    He’s not guilty.

    whembly (c30c83) — 9/14/2020 @ 7:06 am

    It’s nice that you’re so sure that a man who confessed, with substantial corroboration, is not guilty. If Flynn were not a part of Trump’s corrupt administration, but rather if Flynn were an opponent, you’d probably say the opposite.

    That’s the joy of being non-partisan. I would say the same thing of Flynn if he were Biden’s best friend.

    But OK, you’re sure this man is not guilty. If so, why all this panic to keep his case out of court? He has literally every advantage, but he can’t win without the DOJ being flipped.

    I’m not so sure he’s guilty. But, I’m am sure he has more than enough to withdraw his plea and hash it out in court.

    People plead guilty for things they didn’t do all the time as a strategic tactic to escape the full force of the government and sentencing. In the beginning, he was looking at ZERO jail time and was convinced by his original attorneys that this would be a “quick” process.

    It’s not hard to see Flynn wanted that “out” in the beginning.

    But since there’s oodles of stuff that has happened over the course of this case, circumstances changed and has motioned to withdraw his plea and fight it. Only now, this motion is placed on hold since the DOJ is seeking to drop the case.

    Remember, the democrats will have every lever of power Trump has innovated. We all benefit if guilty crooks go down, on both sides.

    Dustin (4237e0) — 9/14/2020 @ 7:31 am

    What has he innovated? Genuine question here…

    whembly (c30c83)

  34. The Trump administration is a sewer that Sullivan does not want to drink from. It’s that simple.

    nk (1d9030)

  35. mueller put stephen hatfill under a similar water torture, for nearly as long, based on nick kristof’s vaporous inhalations from meryl nass and another susan rosenberg, this is the same crew that missed peter debbins, who was flying his volodya freak flag before mssrs kent andrews and halper, but they didn’t complain,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  36. @30

    whembly 24: He motioned to withdraw is plea.

    He’s not guilty.

    No. Check the court file. Flynn was charged on 11/30/2017 and he plead guilty on 12/1/2017. Two judges accepted Flynn’s guilty plea, first in December 2017 and again in December 2018. Both times Flynn acknowledged his guilt in court, and his plea was accepted. That legally and factually established his guilt, since he admitted the conduct.

    In May 2020, Flynn filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion is still pending. Merely filing a motion to withdraw does not undo his guilty plea or his guilt.

    DRJ (aede82) — 9/14/2020 @ 7:38 am

    That’s true.

    I stand corrected.

    I’m merely trying to counter the “bUt He PlEaD gUiLtY” crowd who thinks that Flynn shouldn’t fight this.

    Remember, his ORIGINAL attorney’s had an unwaivable conflict of interest and should’ve ethically told Flynn to find another attorney. (their firm was under investigation for Flynn’s potential FARA violation).

    whembly (c30c83)

  37. Flynn waived any conflict of interest (and they can be waived):

    Prosecutors have dismissed the conflict-of-interest claim, saying that they raised the issue with Flynn’s attorneys at the time and that he and his lawyers agreed to waive it.

    DRJ (aede82)

  38. Covington and Burling is prohibited by confidentiality rules from responding to anything Flynn and his new attorneys claim. They want to make the first attorneys the scapegoat here but that doesn’t make it true. Flynn was not misled. He was not ignorant or stupid, but if he is then why did Trump want him as NSA?

    DRJ (aede82)

  39. DRJ,

    ‘did you read your link?

    A Boston judge had no authority to deny a prosecution bid to drop a disorderly conduct charge against a police observer at a “straight pride” parade, according to a justice on the state’s top court.

    Justice Frank Gaziano of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled Monday for Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins, who had sought dismissal in what is known as a nolle prosequi, report the Boston Herald, MassLive.com, Law360 and WBUR.

    The judge tried to take the case for himself when the State asked for dismissal. The high court overturned the judge and reprimanded him saying he was violating separation of powers and trying to take the State’s ‘power to prosecute’.

    Gaziano said Boston Municipal Court Judge Richard Sinnott wrongly exercised executive power that is reserved to the state under its constitution and infringed the separation of powers. Executive power gives the state the power to determine which cases to prosecute, Gaziano said.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  40. I did read it, which is why I pointed out the two things that make the Flynn case different than that case in my subsequent comments. But the case/story that I linked illustrates that judges sometimes object when prosecutors and defendants agree to dismiss charges, something you suggested does not happen.

    DRJ (aede82)

  41. Rob, I specifically pointed out in my very next comment that the judge was reversed.

    DRJ (aede82)

  42. Like the Cook County judge who appointed a special prosecutor in the Jussie Smollett case after the State’s Attorney nolle prossed might say: Who cares what the Massachusetts rules of nolle prosequi are?

    nk (1d9030)

  43. Good example, nk. If we approve or disapprove of a result based on the people involved instead of the rules, then that should make us pause.

    DRJ (aede82)

  44. Ok, ok, Flynn is a better actor than Jussie Smollett. He managed to convince the FBI agents who interviewed him that he was telling the truth, and it took independent evidence to show he was lying. But I don’t know how much weight that is entitled to in a federal court.

    nk (1d9030)

  45. No you didn’t DRJ.

    You just gave a snippet,

    State case law establishes that, prior to trial, prosecutors have the absolute right to enter a nolle prosequi “except possibly in instances of scandalous abuse of authority,” Gaziano said, quoting from a 1923 case.
    DRJ (aede82) — 9/14/2020 @ 6:38 am

    that doesn’t definitively say anything. It’s a hedge. A maybe.

    Furthermore, you haven’t proven any scandalous abuse of authority where the burden of proof is on the judge … and that doesn’t mean he gets to go on a fishing expedition.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  46. If that is true then it should be easy for you to analyze each point and discredit it. Please do so. Merely labeling it a screed is not persuasive.

    This.

    Most of the comments here read the way a comment would read if someone read the headline and reacted to that without reading the post.

    I know you’re not going to read Gleeson’s brief, folks. That’s why I summarized it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  47. He is better. I am starting to wonder if he is smarter.

    DRJ (aede82)

  48. The process is the punishment. You already bankrupted the man, threatened his son, all because Orange Man Bad.

    If you wanted to go after him for his crimes, you would’ve gone after his relations with Turkey. But nope. It was … bad Trump.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  49. Well, of course the prosecutors dismissed it. THEY WANTED FLYNN’S GUILTY PLEA. Getting a different attorney would change that (and did when Powell came onboard).

    Powell is arguing that Flynn couldn’t waived it if even if he wanted to, because his original attorney had an ethical OBLIGATION to do so.
    https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592/gov.uscourts.dcd.191592.160.2_2.pdf

    Sixth Amendment Violations—The Ineffectiveness of Mr. Flynn’s Former
    Counsel—Tainted his Guilty Plea as well as the Subsequent Colloquy at his
    December 2018 Hearing.

    The third and most important factor in determining whether a defendant should be
    permitted to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing is “whether the guilty plea was somehow
    tainted.” United States v. McCoy, 215 F.3d at 106. “Taint” in this context typically means that
    the plea was entered “unconstitutionally,” which in turn often means that the plea was not
    “voluntary and intelligent” because it was based on advice of counsel that fell below the level of
    “reasonable competence” that is required to satisfy the Sixth Amendment.
    Strickland, 466 U.S. at
    714. A year after Strickland was decided, the Supreme Court assimilated its test for claims of
    ineffective assistance of counsel to the context of guilty pleas in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52
    (1985). This Circuit summarized the resulting rule as follows:

    The Hill-Strickland test requires the defendant to show both that counsel’s advice
    was not ‘within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases,’
    and that as a result he was prejudiced, i.e. ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but
    for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on
    going to trial.’

    United States v. Horne, 987 F.2d 833, 835 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). Focusing
    on different language from Strickland and Hill, the same court summarized similarly a few years
    later:

    [a] defendant must [] show first, that his counsel’s performance ‘fell below an
    objective standard of reasonableness’ by identifying specific ‘acts or omissions of
    counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional
    judgment,’ and second a defendant ‘must demonstrate that the deficiencies in his
    representation were prejudicial to his defense. He ‘must show that there is a
    reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, he would not have pleaded
    guilty and would have insisted on going to trial.

    Taylor, 139 F.3d at 929-30 (citations omitted). Mr. Flynn meets those tests throughout this case,
    including with both his 2017 guilty plea and his colloquy with this Court. The multiple instances
    in which Mr. Flynn’s former lawyers’ conflicts of interest and actions fell completely short of
    professional norms, thus depriving him of the constitutionally mandated effective assistance of
    counsel, nullified his opportunity to make informed decisions about his own case, and it grossly
    prejudiced his defense.

    The Covington attorneys were under investigation themselves for potential FARA violation under the work they’ve done for Flynn’s company.

    Don’t you, as an attorney, see that this is a huge conflict of interest for Flynn’s defense? How can the Covington attorney provide for a vigorous defense, when the outcome of THEIR OWN liability may stem from Flynn’s plea.

    Hence why, it’s been argued that such conflicts are unwaivable.

    whembly (c30c83)

  50. No you didn’t DRJ.

    I am not sure what this refers to but I specifically said the judge was reversed. That tells you what you need to know about the case outcome. But you said:

    “Show me a case where both the government and the defense were in agreement to dismiss the case and the judge said, “nah.”

    … and I did.

    DRJ (aede82)

  51. The process is punishing but it is far better than relying on a corrupt partisan system.

    DRJ (aede82)

  52. … and I did.

    #MeToo.

    nk (1d9030)

  53. So you showed me a case where a judge clearly overstepped his authority and was slapped down.

    Thanks I guess.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  54. There are frequent conflicts in law, especially white collar crime representation, because so few firms take these cases. Disclosure of the conflict and waiver by the client is a common way to deal with conflicts. He was free to find other counsel but he waived it, probably because he did not feel it was a problem. I think it would be hard to find an unwaivable conflict of interest. It can exist but I don’t think this is one.

    DRJ (aede82)

  55. That judge was reversed but the appeals court specifically said there are exceptions where a judge would be permitted to overrule a prosecution/defendant agreement to dismiss a case. As Patterico summarized in the post, there are fact patterns where that can happen. That is the important point here since the Flynn attorneys say it can never happen. Plus, you did ask for an example where a judge actually did it, and I gave you one.

    DRJ (aede82)

  56. As did nk.

    DRJ (aede82)

  57. No they didn’t.

    I cannot believe how many people here suddenly support show trials.

    The appeals court said there might be a situation where it was possible. They did not say there is a situation where it is possible. I thought words mattered.

    Flynn was lied to, given poor representation, threatened by the power of the government, lied to about what was said to prosecute him, and still you think he deserves to be punished over and over again.

    I don’t get it.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  58. The process is the punishment. You already bankrupted the man, threatened his son, all because Orange Man Bad.

    Do you think rote incantation of the phrase “Orange Man Bad” is persuasive?

    Patterico (1b4610)

  59. look at it another way, rob, it took 20 years for the truth about edwin wilson to get out, that he was ordered by langley hire ups, to sell semtex to qaddafi, who in turn provided them to eta, the plo and the ira, to provide mercs to target his dissidents abroad,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  60. @63

    I don’t get it.

    NJRob (eb56c3) — 9/14/2020 @ 8:52 am

    He’s a Trumper. So, regular order be damned… apparently.

    The fact that folks believed Flynn lied to investigators, EVEN when the investigators stated they didn’t believe he did…AND had the original transcript of the call and chose NOT to share it with Flynn to jog his memory is a major tell.

    Do we want rule of law? Or do we want political prosecution?

    Can’t have both.

    whembly (c30c83)

  61. POTUS has telegraphed, via tweet and talk, his POV on Flynn. When the timing is most advantageous to our Captain, he’ll pull the switch and fry the paper jockeys w/50,000 volts of presidential pardon. The ‘juice’ will set you free. 😉

    “Shocking. Positively shocking.” – James Bond [Sean Connery] ‘Goldfinger’ 1964

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  62. @63

    Do you think rote incantation of the phrase “Orange Man Bad” is persuasive?

    Patterico (1b4610) — 9/14/2020 @ 8:58 am

    How else would you explain it? It explains the incessant need to support the powers of the government to punish your political opponents.

    You’ve labeled Trump supporters “Trumpers” and “Trumpalos” ad nauseam. Do you find your argument more persuasive using those terms?

    whembly (c30c83)

  63. so the wheels of justice, do grind slowly, now prosecutors of that ilk will be empowered to try again, because truth is no bar and the media will not challenge them, in part,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  64. we have seen how far biden goes to make sure that sinecures involving his offspring, are not investigated, even though they involve billions of dollars in us and inf funds,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  65. IANAL, so I have no opinion on the legal merits. I think we left “legal merits” behind a long time ago, anyway.

    Sullivan denying the motion will be no different from any number of ways the Left tries to help Trump get re-elected. Only the most extreme Trump critics think the witch hunt is a winning issue. And Flynn will get pardoned anyway.

    Meanwhile, the rioters and looters also campaigning for Trump get their charges dropped by Soros backed DAs, or get bailed out by Biden staffers — yet, Flynn is where we’re putting our foot down and making a stand. Yes, we can do both. I see a laser beam focus on only one though.

    Step back, get your bearings, and maybe see how nuts this is.

    beer ‘n pretzels (00f6cd)

  66. Do you think rote incantation of the phrase “Orange Man Bad” is persuasive?

    Patterico (1b4610) — 9/14/2020 @ 8:58 am

    No I don’t. Nor do I think nk’s constant invective or all those who constantly name call Trump and his supporters. Yet here we are.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  67. You have convinced yourselves that Flynn is innocent and powerless to stand up to the system, despite the fact he is an intelligent man with a long history in government service who had top attorneys and repeatedly plead guilty over a twelve month period.

    You think that is unjust? It is more likely he lied and he knew it, but now he wants a do-over because the President has his back.

    DRJ (aede82)

  68. they have charged some of the mccloskey rioters with tresspassing, a summons from a witness, not a statement from the corrupt kim gardner, was the clue, of course they were subject to a false charge,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  69. No DRJ.

    I have convinced myself that Flynn was crooked as sin when it came to Turkey and he was looting for himself. I am also convinced this is a political prosecution done by the previous administration and continued because they thought it could be used to remove the current president. We have the evidence that the FBI agents who interviewed him thought he was honest. We have the recordings of his conversations that he was denied review. We have repeated evidence in other cases of political manipulation done in the FBI for a partisan purpose.

    And we have clear insight that some think Trump must go down no matter the cost… which is why they support Biden.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  70. We have repeated examples of Soros prosecutors engaging in selective prosecution or in the case of Minnesota, persecution.

    We have previous instances where the last admin had someone convicted and ready to be sentenced when the case was dropped and there were crickets (Black Panthers).

    And on and on.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  71. The Manafort jury had Trump supporters who said they wanted to excuse him but they couldn’t because the facts showed he did it. Maybe Flynn wanted to avoid a trial for himself and his family because he knew what might come out. He could always convince some people he wasn’t really guilty of anything.

    DRJ (aede82)

  72. I think the documents show the FBI agents thought Flynn believed he was telling the truth. That is not the same as honest. They initially thought Flynn remembered the conversation incorrectly, but after he gave a different account to Pence and Spicer they realized that was not true.

    DRJ (aede82)

  73. Further, the FBI asked Flynn if he wanted a lawyer for his interview and he said he did not. We protect the accused in our system but there are limits.

    DRJ (aede82)

  74. The process is the punishment. You already bankrupted the man, threatened his son, all because Orange Man Bad.

    It’s telling when one must resort to using the “Orange Man Bad” excuse for a mature and intelligent adult who has pled guilty to his crimes.

    Dana (292df6)

  75. I havent i just provided the transcript, if you’re going to prosecute every minion of the sultan you’d clean out half of k street, including seemingly respectable folk like richard armitage lol

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  76. The real damage came from lying to Pence and Spicer because they went public. As the General he was, he thought his account would not be questioned. I doubt it would have mattered had he just told the truth but that is not the story they wanted to start the first week in office. So Trump fired him. Problem solved. If anyone pulled the rug out from under Flynn it was Trump, not the FBI.

    DRJ (aede82)

  77. No sally yates did, and they hid the evidence for three years, it was the same play against lewis libby 14 years earlier.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  78. You’ve labeled Trump supporters “Trumpers” and “Trumpalos” ad nauseam. Do you find your argument more persuasive using those terms?

    “Trumpers” is not a particularly disparaging term; it’s just an abbreviation. As for “Trumpalos” and “Trumpistas,” Pat and others use those terms for people who reflexively defend whatever Trump does, no matter what.

    Regardless of how many specific reasons people list for disapproving of Trump, the fervent “Trump supporters” say the critics are desperately seeking something to justify their totally superficial, “deranged” hatred of Trump. The “Orange Man Bad” mantra is a way of pretending that the reasons enumerated are merely pretextual, as there can’t possibly be any real reason to disapprove of Trump.

    “Trumpalo” and “Trumpista” are not unfair labels for people who take that posture.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  79. But that’s just it, he didn’t lie. I was discussing Embassy staff, not the financial sanctions. The media reported that he discussed “sanctions”. He didn’t have the luxury of seeing the transcript either, so it became a media outrage that Trump didn’t want to deal with.

    whembly (c30c83)

  80. starting with his private entreaties to James Comey to let Flynn go.

    and Comey did so immediately, or he made it known.

    Donald Trump had a meeting with James Comey (after a bigger meeting with other people also) late on February 14, 2017.

    He spoke to him about a February 14, 2017 New York Times story. Comey later went to great lengths to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee the contents of the story were untrue.

    In this conversation, Trump also said a few words about Mike Flynn, perhaps as an ice breaker. Flynn highlighted that and tried to pretend it was the focus of the conversation. I think Comey later conceded it was not.

    At 6:25 am February 15, Zero Hedge has this: (that’s Feb 15 in spite of the URL saying Feb 14)

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-14/mike-flynn-may-face-felony-charges-lying-fbi

    But by 10 pm Zero Hedge reports:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-15/fbi-reportedly-will-not-pursue-charges-against-cooperative-and-truthful-mike-flynn

    See:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/832013379124486148?p=v

    Jim Sciutto
    @jimsciutto

    Breaking: FBI NOT expected to pursue charges against #MichaelFlynn regarding pho
    ne calls w/Russian Ambassador, reports @evanperez

    3:45 PM – 15 Feb 2017

    ———–

    Jim Sciutto
    @jimsciutto

    Replying to @jimsciutto

    More: FBI says Flynn was cooperative and provided truthful answers

    3:47 PM – 15 Feb 2017

    ————————————————————–

    The Senate committee evidently didn’t discover this story, or similar ones derivative of it:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-agains
    t-flynn/index.html

    Here’s how it appeared on the KTLA (Channel 5 in Los Angeles) website:

    http://ktla.com/2017/02/16/fbi-not-expected-to-pursue-charges-against-michael-flynn-law-enforcement-officials

    FBI Not Expected to Pursue Charges Against Michael Flynn: Law Enforcement Officials

    Posted 3:01 PM, February 16, 2017, by CNN Wire

    The FBI is not expected to pursue any charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn regarding a phone call with Russia’s ambassador, barring new information that changes what they know, law enforcement officials told CNN Thursday..

    ————————————-

    This was two days after James Comey’s meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

    What brought about the guilty plea was other things Mike Flynn did, with him deciding to plead guilty to this charge in exchange for dropping all others.

    I think the judge didn’t want him later withdrawing that guilty plea (at a time when the government would not be likely to go back to the more serious charges. It would mostly be Mueller who might.)

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  81. *He… not I.

    lol…I’m on conference call right now and shouldn’t be writing this while trying to listen to my call.

    whembly (c30c83)

  82. 84. whembly (c30c83) — 9/14/2020 @ 9:55 am

    was discussing Embassy staff, not the financial sanctions. The media reported that he discussed “sanctions”.

    Obama expelling Russian embassy staff was the sanctions. At that time it was expected Russia would expel American diplomats in return.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  83. @74 The DOJ wasn’t under Democratic control in 2017, Jeff Sessions had been the Attny General for almost a year by the time Flynn was charged and plead guilty the 1st time and the Trump administration had been in for amost 2 yrs by the time he plead guilty the 2nd time. He was not prosecuted under the previous administration, he was prosecuted under this one.

    Nic (896fdf)

  84. @83: That you would compose a three paragraph justification for grade school name calling speaks volumes.

    beer ‘n pretzels (27da31)

  85. The DOJ wasn’t under Democratic control in 2017

    LOL

    beer ‘n pretzels (e33b0e)

  86. Shorter 83. Our name calling is justified. Yours isn’t.

    Sounds like the left when they say your words are violence. Our violence is speech.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  87. 77. DRJ (aede82) — 9/14/2020 @ 9:26 am

    I think the documents show the FBI agents thought Flynn believed he was telling the truth. That is not the same as honest. They initially thought Flynn remembered the conversation incorrectly, but after he gave a different account to Pence and Spicer they realized that was not true.

    I don’t think it went down that way. First the 32 was written and revised and Strzok revised the other guy’s one, too. He revised it in line with leading questions by Comey – that Flynn did not show signs of nervousness.

    Someone leaked to the press (CNN) that the FBI thought Flynn was honest long after the FBI knew what Flynn had said to Mike Pence and Spicer.

    Actually, they had thought he was not honest, and thought he began claiming memory problems as soon as he realized from their questions that they probably had a transcript of his conversation with Kislyak. But, as I said, Comey asked the agents leading questions later.

    That’s all somewhere in previous threads.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  88. @86

    84. whembly (c30c83) — 9/14/2020 @ 9:55 am

    was discussing Embassy staff, not the financial sanctions. The media reported that he discussed “sanctions”.

    Obama expelling Russian embassy staff was the sanctions. At that time it was expected Russia would expel American diplomats in return.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11) — 9/14/2020 @ 9:58 am

    The were two separate act. The financial sanctions was one. Then later Obama kicked out some Russian diplomats.

    The news media outcry was regarding the financial sanctions, which led to Flynn’s firing.

    The Flynn transcript showed that he didn’t want Russia to reciprocate kicking US diplomats from Russia. He didn’t discuss the financial sanctions. Kislyak mentioned it, but at no point did Flynn discuss that aspect.

    whembly (c30c83)

  89. @88 — I was explaining why there is no parallel between the typical use of the “Orange Man Bad” mantra in response to specific criticisms, and the use of “Trumpalo” as a label for those who recite “Orange Man Bad” in response to specific criticisms.

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  90. @88 –
    Oh, and it’s very funny when Trump defenders purport to be offended by “grade school name calling.”

    Radegunda (e1ea47)

  91. 88. Nic (896fdf) — 9/14/2020 @ 9:58 am

    He was not prosecuted under the previous administration, he was prosecuted under this one.

    I think he was being pursued (along many lines of investigation) by special counsel Mueller’s office, on the suspicion he might have some relationship with Russia. After all, Obama had forced his early retirement as head of the DIA because he thought he might have been recruited by the GRU. Now you might say, if that’s what you are thinking might be true, you shouldn’t just leave it at that. But Obama took the easy way out.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  92. Oh, and it’s very funny when Trump defenders purport to be offended by “grade school name calling.”

    You’re confused. I’m not offended. You are, as evidenced by your comment.

    beer ‘n pretzels (e33b0e)

  93. I read the brief. Sullivan would be doing the judicial branch a favor by denying the motion and sentencing Flynn, the sooner the better so that Trump can issue his pardon.

    Paul Montagu (9cf48a)

  94. @90 Lol is certainly an excellently reasoned response given that there are zero arguments for accusing Jeff Sessions of being a Democrat.

    @96 Maybe so, maybe not, but he wasn’t prosecuted by the Democrats.

    Nic (896fdf)

  95. No he was a fool, like ashcroft 14 years earlier

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  96. You’re confused. I’m not offended. You are, as evidenced by your comment.

    beer ‘n pretzels (e33b0e) — 9/14/2020 @ 10:30 am

    No he’s right. I’ve noticed you’ve been taking it personally a lot lately. You really seem to be personally upset when Trump is criticized, and you twisted a number of my comments into a pretzel instead of just agreeing to disagree.

    I totally get it. I’ve been very passionate about arguments on here. I just don’t think Trump’s worth your heartache. He’s the worst president in history and would trade you and everyone you love for a diet coke, man.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  97. @90 Lol is certainly an excellently reasoned response given that there are zero arguments for accusing Jeff Sessions of being a Democrat.

    Sessions recused. You know this, but continue pushing an inconsequential point anyway.

    beer ‘n pretzels (137202)

  98. Sessions recused. You know this, but continue pushing an inconsequential point anyway.

    beer ‘n pretzels (137202) — 9/14/2020 @ 11:19 am

    Case in point. This disagreement about Sessions doesn’t mean someone is lying to you, and your anger shows it’s not inconsequential to you.

    I will never understand why anyone fights this hard for Trump. What about Trump has so many apparently intelligent people so passionate to shut down whistleblowers, critics, or investigations? Why don’t we want Flynn convicted for what he did?

    Dustin (4237e0)

  99. he was a fool, and too vane to retract, meanwhile rosenstein played the comey game,* letting the kraken um mueller loose, he had a useful catspaw in berman who recused to khuzaimi, to go after manafort and others, but not touch weber and podesta, the involved in the transition integrity plan, jim wolfe leaked page’s fisa, modified by clinesmith to david ignatius, then there was the indictment against concord, that fell apart because they brought on a veteran of the sdny and sffl as defense counsel, who pointed out disturbing facts, mueller used a known pedophile, 142 times in his magnus opus, a qualitative step downward from when fitz handled david radler with kid gloves

    *see patrick fitzgerald, 2003-2007, subsequent counsel for michigan state, in the larry nassar affair,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  100. @102 Rod Rosenstein was also appointed by Trump. The Dems were not in charge of the DOJ.

    Nic (896fdf)

  101. there was no need to, he had also been a party to the bogus fisa warrant, which continued against carter page, sans evidence,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  102. 94,

    Your explanation at 83 was very clear to anyone not bound by loyalty to Trump. The refusal to see the obviousness of it is yet another example of the very same reflexive defense of Trump by those who Patrick and others refer to as “Trumpalos” and “Trumpistas”.

    Dana (292df6)

  103. I will never understand why anyone fights this hard for Trump. What about Trump has so many apparently intelligent people so passionate to shut down whistleblowers, critics, or investigations? Why don’t we want Flynn convicted for what he did?

    Dustin (4237e0) — 9/14/2020 @ 11:23 am

    Trump is a mascot of their tribe and promises to inflict retribution on those who have shown disrespect to their tribe. To show respect (or disrespect) to Trump is to show it to their tribe and by extension, to them. I’m sure you’ve met a sports fan that got viscerally angry when something bad happened to their team, it’s the same thing. Some people are political team joiners. Others get their sense of identity from different place; their job, their family, where they grew up.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  104. The process is the punishment. You already bankrupted the man, threatened his son, all because Orange Man Bad.

    Do you think rote incantation of the phrase “Orange Man Bad” is persuasive?

    Patterico (1b4610) — 9/14/2020 @ 8:58 am

    It’s an insult. It that implies that you’re stupid and your position is derived through personal animus and not because you’ve thought fairly about what happened and reached a given conclusion. It’s probably not intended to persuade, it’s intended to balance the scales for insulting their mascot by calling you dumb.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  105. @107: I’ve never once seen Patterico use those terms, but I don’t read the blog every day. Name calling reflects on those who engage in it, whether that’s Trump or anyone here. That said, go for it and enjoy.

    beer ‘n pretzels (137202)

  106. @54, Whembly, part of what frustrates me about the way this is being done is that there are 2 serious charges being swept under the rug. You’ve made reference to both;
    1. That Flynn’s original attorneys had an unwaivable conflict of interest.
    2. That Flynn’s original plea was coerced by threatening his son.

    It bothers me that the the DOJ is walking away from the guilty plea at the same time they’re saying the plea was un-coerced. I’d be happier if the DOJ admitted to coercing a plea and the people involved were held accountable. FWIW i don’t think his plea was coerced in a way that is different from how we normally do justice. But if it was the people involved should be accountable to it.

    Either Barr is lying about what went on, or he’s letting people who committed improper acts get away with it. At least that’s how it looks to me.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  107. 94,

    Your explanation at 83 was very clear to anyone not bound by loyalty to Trump. The refusal to see the obviousness of it is yet another example of the very same reflexive defense of Trump by those who Patrick and others refer to as “Trumpalos” and “Trumpistas”.

    Dana (292df6) — 9/14/2020 @ 11:42 am

    It’s hard to have a conversation with someone if you use a label for them they feel is an insult. You can debate intent, or who it applies to, all you want, but as a practical matter people rarely have good conversations when they feel insulted. I don’t think Patterico has used those terms often, if at all.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  108. Time123 (ae9d89) — 9/14/2020 @ 12:05 pm

    Either Barr is lying about what went on, or he’s letting people who committed improper acts get away with it. At least that’s how it looks to me.

    No, he;s sticking p for the truth the plea was uncoerced, other than in the way many plea bargains are, and the crime that Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to did not really fit the definition of a crime, and it never would have been prosecuted by itself.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  109. the crime that Mike Flynn pleaded guilty to did not really fit the definition of a crime, and it never would have been prosecuted by itself.

    IANAL but from what I’ve read (see Ken White @Popehat) Flynn’s prosecution for false statements was entirely in line with how the DOJ pursues such chases.

    Time123 (ae9d89)

  110. …EVEN when the investigators stated they didn’t believe he did…

    That’s not true. They said that Flynn sounded truthful even though they caught him in a bald-faced lie.

    Paul Montagu (9cf48a)

  111. And Rod Rosenstein appointed Mueller to take control of the investigation into Trump for firing the director of the FBI that Andrew McCabe had started away from Andrew McCabe

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  112. “Either Barr is lying about what went on, or he’s letting people who committed improper acts get away with it. At least that’s how it looks to me.”

    It’s this. If there was truly a gross miscarriage of justice, what is stopping it from happening again? Has it happened before, to someone who isn’t one of the president’s cronies?

    Davethulhu (a609dc)

  113. Has it happened before, to someone who isn’t one of the president’s cronies?

    Kristian Saucier

    beer ‘n pretzels (630d56)

  114. “Kristian Saucier”

    This is pure “But Hillary”, but I’ll go ahead and argue it. Was Saucier falsely accused? Was his guilty plea coerced? Were the people responsible disciplined? Were there any procedural changes?

    Davethulhu (a609dc)

  115. Trump is a mascot of their tribe and promises to inflict retribution on those who have shown disrespect to their tribe. To show respect (or disrespect) to Trump is to show it to their tribe and by extension, to them. I’m sure you’ve met a sports fan that got viscerally angry when something bad happened to their team, it’s the same thing. Some people are political team joiners. Others get their sense of identity from different place; their job, their family, where they grew up.

    Time123 (dba73f) — 9/14/2020 @ 11:55 am

    Very well said. We’ve all found ourselves in error, or upset about something emotionally when the other side is just seeing the world differently. We have come up with a way to handle that in our elections. I just wish Trump didn’t define himself and his victory as ‘fighting’ with these trollish stunts on twitter, manipulating the news cycle with things like pardons.

    Trump has no problem finding fuel for the fight, if we have cities burning and cops getting assassinated. I just think we all need to step back and realize it’s this fighting that’s fueling the fighting. It’s not going to get better if we keep this up.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  116. Was Saucier falsely accused? Was his guilty plea coerced? Were the people responsible disciplined? Were there any procedural changes?

    No. No. No. No.

    Your questions have nothing to do with what you asked for. Here are some relevant ones:

    Was Saucier’s crime material to anything? No.
    Was Saucier’s charge indicative of selective prosecution? Yes.

    beer ‘n pretzels (7e7b43)

  117. “Your questions have nothing to do with what you asked for.”

    The “it” in my post that you quoted @118 is “gross miscarriage of justice”.

    “Was Saucier’s charge indicative of selective prosecution? Yes.”

    Of Saucier? Or of Hillary (by selecting to not prosecute her)? Does the FBI’s failure to indict Hillary mean that nobody else can ever be charged with her crime?

    Davethulhu (a609dc)

  118. Trump has no problem finding fuel for the fight, if we have cities burning and cops getting assassinated. I just think we all need to step back and realize it’s this fighting that’s fueling the fighting. It’s not going to get better if we keep this up.

    1. Most media is consumed for an emotional reaction. News media is no different. Fox sells outrage and fear. MSNBC sells smugness and contempt.
    2. Trump is brilliant at selling Trump. He knew how to tap into outrage and fear. Like a good salesmen he identified the need; retribution and protection, and defined himself as the product that would fix that need. (e.g. Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it).

    The current state of affairs seems to flow naturally from this. There’s more too it, and it’s not hopeless, but this is the bones of it.

    Time123 (dba73f)

  119. Does the FBI’s failure to indict Hillary mean that nobody else can ever be charged with her crime?

    If there are apparent political motivations, yes. An example I’ve referred to before is the dropping of charges against Antifa/BLM protesters in Portland but not dropping the exact same charge against Patriot Prayer protesters.

    Unlike Flynn’s, Saucier’s prosecution doesn’t appear to be politically motivated, but I didn’t have a problem with his pardon. Did you? As you say, it’s totally “But Hillary” but that doesn’t make it wrong.

    beer ‘n pretzels (194ead)

  120. “Unlike Flynn’s, Saucier’s prosecution doesn’t appear to be politically motivated, but I didn’t have a problem with his pardon. Did you? As you say, it’s totally “But Hillary” but that doesn’t make it wrong.”

    I think his pardon was politically motivated. I don’t have any particular problem that he was pardoned.

    I don’t think his case can be categorized as a gross miscarriage of justice, though.

    Davethulhu (a609dc)

  121. there is no doubt, but you make excuses for this corrupt agency, which has not only persecuted a war hero, but has let actual chinese and russian agents, yuk cheng the most recent one, peter debbins, inside their most secure installations,

    now at the end of the road, obama was sure to screw israel, at the un, because that’s one of his fetishes, biden having withheld monies to netanyahu for a year so no settlements could be built,
    settlements are what texas was comprised of,

    bolivar de gris (7404b5)

  122. “there is no doubt, but you make excuses for this corrupt agency, which has not only persecuted a war hero, but has let actual chinese and russian agents, yuk cheng the most recent one, peter debbins, inside their most secure installations,”

    Once again, if this is true, why isn’t anything being done to correct said corrupt agency?

    Davethulhu (a609dc)

  123. @83: That you would compose a three paragraph justification for grade school name calling speaks volumes.

    That’s right, Radegunda. As much as I esteem your opinion, that’s not enough. I also want to hear from Lying Ted, Nasty Nancy, and Sleepy Joe, not to mention the “Animals that must be hit hard!”.

    nk (1d9030)

  124. Your high horse has hoof and mouth disease, Trumpkins.

    nk (1d9030)

  125. @112

    94,

    Your explanation at 83 was very clear to anyone not bound by loyalty to Trump. The refusal to see the obviousness of it is yet another example of the very same reflexive defense of Trump by those who Patrick and others refer to as “Trumpalos” and “Trumpistas”.

    Dana (292df6) — 9/14/2020 @ 11:42 am

    It’s hard to have a conversation with someone if you use a label for them they feel is an insult. You can debate intent, or who it applies to, all you want, but as a practical matter people rarely have good conversations when they feel insulted. I don’t think Patterico has used those terms often, if at all.

    Time123 (ae9d89) — 9/14/2020 @ 12:08 pm

    Agreed.

    Hence why I’ve found it easier to say “Trump critics” or simply “critics” instead of going Orange Man Bad or TDS-ism. I’ve failed in the past and if I’m honest, I’ll fail again… but, those are usually born out of frustration rather than a need to insult.

    DRJ (and Pat supported) that I’d break down as to why I think Gleeson’s screed wrong. But, I don’t sense a desire to have that debate from either of them as their mind is already made up, so I’m not going to waste my time. At the very least, both being attorneys, I’m surprised they’re not willing to support Flynn’s plea withdrawl and have him fight it in court. Let the prosecution and the defense hash it out. (for argument sake, don’t consider the DOJ’s motion to dismiss just yet).

    whembly (c30c83)

  126. Not sure why my comment at 130 is stuck in moderation. No link abuses or swear words…

    whembly (c30c83)

  127. RIP Murph the Surf. You gotta admire his chutzpah.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  128. Patterico has used the term hack and dishonest frequently. “Hack” implies that the legal reasoning is so flawed that the person should not be a lawyer or a judge.. “Dishonest” implies that the legal reasoning is flawed and the lawyer or Judge knows it is flawed but is making the argument for reasons having nothing to do with the law. If he really believed this, he should provide evidence and move to have the person disbarred. More likely, he is just angry and doesn’t really care if the insults are truly accurate or not. This is why I think the legal professions professional conduct ethics need to be revised and tightened considerably. Then we would have a lot more disbarments and the legal profession would be rid of these hacks and dishonest lawyers and a lot fewer opinions about other lawyers tossed around without evidence.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  129. And if this tougher ethics code were to be enforced, it would be a lot more difficult for a lawyer to practice while holding office.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  130. Holding an elected office that is.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  131. Although often attributed to Aesop, the fable of the mice belling the cat is of much more recent origin.

    nk (1d9030)

  132. With another corrupt pardon the day after the election?

    It’s kind of funny how corrupt AGs who DON’T investigate get away with it. Lois Lerner and indeed the whole corrupt IRS management wiped disks and backups and crushed the hardware and no one was charged with a thing.

    Given that kind of example for “the rule of law” I’m thinking the real rule is “be a Democrat.”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  133. Given the way that the system works, all I can say is “who the F cares anymore?”

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  134. Someone ought to send Sullivan a stuffed unicorn which says “I care” when you pull the string.

    Kevin M (ab1c11)

  135. But, I don’t sense a desire to have that debate from either of them as their mind is already made up, so I’m not going to waste my time.

    Funny, that’s how I feel about you.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  136. I read the brief. Sullivan would be doing the judicial branch a favor by denying the motion and sentencing Flynn, the sooner the better so that Trump can issue his pardon.

    So says every fair-minded person who reads it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  137. It seems like everyone has made up their mind already about the motion to dismiss, but wouldn’t it be better to wait for the oral argument to decide whether it should be granted? If the hearing on the motion is to be anything other than a useless exercise, maybe everyone ought to try to keep an open mind before it. It’s true that a lot of judges like to decide everything “on the papers” but even the overworked civil law-and-motion judges in LA Superior Court have been known, on rare occasions, to reverse their own “tentative rulings,” which are usually posted before the hearings, when counsel has made a really effective oral argument.

    Won’t comment on the latest amicus filing without reading it, but would just ask, of those who think the judge should deny the motion, do you think that the interests of justice, back when the Flynn case was getting started, required that he be prosecuted? I get that there was sufficient evidence to support a prosecution, but is the argument being made that the government really had no choice in good conscience but to prosecute him based on what they knew back in 2017? I don’t know how real-life prosecutors exercise prosecutorial discretion, but the Flynn case always seemed to me to be one where it would have also been justifiable for the government not to prosecute. If the original decision to file the case was the result of (justifiable) prosecutorial discretion, then why cannot a subsequent prosecutor also exercise discretion to drop it? Must corruption or ill motive, either in the decision to prosecute him originally, or in the decision to seek a dismissal, necessarily be the motive? Just asking, because it seems like everyone, whether pro or anti Trump, is accusing the other side of corruption. Maybe the people on the other side, whichever that side, are merely misguided and not dishonorable?

    RL formerly in Glendale (750b62)

  138. 117. Davethulhu (a609dc) — 9/14/2020 @ 12:59 pm

    It’s this. If there was truly a gross miscarriage of justice, what is stopping it from happening again? Has it happened before, to someone who isn’t one of the president’s cronies?

    It’s this: It wasn’t such a great miscarriage of justice, because this was not charged in isolation.

    There were other crimes involved – some we can suspect may have happened, and some we are more sure of.

    It has happened before, many times, that someone has pleaded guilty to something about which it is questionable if it was a crime. There may even be some statutes on the books for which there almost never any convictions, except as part of a negotiated plea deal.

    By the way, Mike Flynn is not a crony of Donald Trump. He’s just someone Trump got to know during the 2016 campaign when he was his national security adviser. Because he’s associated with Trump, Trump may feel it is a reflection on him.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  139. 134. 1DaveMac (b2b831) — 9/14/2020 @ 4:48 pm

    And if this tougher ethics code were to be enforced, it would be a lot more difficult for a lawyer to practice while holding office.

    Or while his wife does.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/08/us/politics/doug-emhoff-kamala-harris-law.html

    They can write this because it is theory. What Hillary did in the 1980s in Arkansas was almost pure corruption.

    Then there;s the ethics of maybe being on two sides:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/05/us/politics/trump-campaign-funds-legal-bills.html

    Mr. Trump has sometimes used lawyers who also have intervened with the federal government on behalf of other clients, including appeals made directly to him.

    Mr. Sekulow, for example, has run a nonprofit group that pressed the government to stop abortion funding and has also urged the Trump administration to exempt churches from certain federal policies, such as hiring rules. Mr. Sekulow said the dual roles did not represent a conflict because his work for Mr. Trump was done through a separate law firm.

    Sammy Finkelman (ccce11)

  140. #141 your claim is a bridge to far. I’m sure there a plenty of fair minded lawyers who could read the transcript of Flynn’s conversation, consider the conflict of interest of his initial legal representation, and the naivety of the defendent With respect to the ethics of the legal profession in general and make a very good case in opposition to your position. I think you might be a tad biased. A good ethical lawyer should be able to make a fair case that the defendent should not have been allowed to waive the ethics conflict of his original lawyers.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  141. In fact, if the legal profession had a code of ethics, that is what should have happened, and the judge should have ordered new representation as soon as the conflict was discovered.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  142. DRJ (and Pat supported) that I’d break down as to why I think Gleeson’s screed wrong. But, I don’t sense a desire to have that debate from either of them as their mind is already made up, so I’m not going to waste my time.

    I am willing to have that debate and it would not be a waste of time.

    DRJ (aede82)

  143. So, please, go through the brief and address Gleeson’s points (or Patterico’s summary, if you prefer).

    DRJ (aede82)

  144. In fact, his initial legal representatives should have been required to refund every penny of the fees they had been paid up to that point.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  145. Its covington and burling they only cover for purdue pharmaceuticals or yemeni terrorists

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  146. @145 “naivety of the defendant” Are you kidding? Flynn spent almost 20 yrs as an intel guy. He ran an intel company. Are dolphin’s novice swimmers? Are the residents of Santa Barbara maybe ignorant of beaches? Do you think that Brere Rabbit really was afraid of that briar patch?

    Nic (896fdf)

  147. He is not a lawyer. The law is very complex and full of unethical participants.. Just because he spent 20 years in Intel doesn’t mean he isn’t naive about the law and lawyers. In addition, the judge made several statements earlier in the case indicating he was biased against the defendent and he had to walk them back. If we actually had an ethical legal profession, he wouldn’t have been allowed to and would have been removed from the case immediately.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  148. Hence why I’ve found it easier to say “Trump critics” or simply “critics” instead of going Orange Man Bad or $#$$%^&%$-ism. I’ve failed in the past and if I’m honest, I’ll fail again… but, those are usually born out of frustration rather than a need to insult.

    DRJ (and Pat supported) that I’d break down as to why I think Gleeson’s screed wrong. But, I don’t sense a desire to have that debate from either of them as their mind is already made up, so I’m not going to waste my time. At the very least, both being attorneys, I’m surprised they’re not willing to support Flynn’s plea withdrawl and have him fight it in court. Let the prosecution and the defense hash it out. (for argument sake, don’t consider the DOJ’s motion to dismiss just yet).

    whembly (c30c83) — 9/14/2020 @ 3:40 pm

    The bolded word that I put substitute symbols for is banned. I’m guessing it annoyed the owner of the blog. Insulting Trump and his supporters is fair game though.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  149. @152 He is not a lawyer, but he is not, by any stretch of the imagination naive.

    Nic (896fdf)

  150. The plain and simple fact of the mater is that he pleaded guilty to an offense that was, at the minimum, unproveable, and he did it not because his son was threatened with prosecution on other charges, but because he was. And the judge was afraid – he generally was afraid – that he was going to walk it back later and so he asked him pointed questions and he had him swear he was guilty.

    Now one argument he has – which Barr agrees on – is that the lies were not material to any investigation. You could argue that checking out if he would lie (or the FBI getting independent proof that Mike Flynn and not Mike Pence, had lied) was material.

    Sammy Finkelman (5818f3)

  151. He is about our totally corrupt and unethical legal system.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  152. So we have an ethically compromised prosecution, ethically compromised legal representation and an ethically compromised judge, and the defendent is getting a fair trial, right? Got it.

    1DaveMac (b2b831)

  153. Worse thing is Comrade Mr. President Vladimir Vladimirovich will not get penthouse in Moscow Trump Tower.

    nk (1d9030)

  154. Won’t comment on the latest amicus filing without reading it, but would just ask, of those who think the judge should deny the motion, do you think that the interests of justice, back when the Flynn case was getting started, required that he be prosecuted? I get that there was sufficient evidence to support a prosecution, but is the argument being made that the government really had no choice in good conscience but to prosecute him based on what they knew back in 2017? I don’t know how real-life prosecutors exercise prosecutorial discretion, but the Flynn case always seemed to me to be one where it would have also been justifiable for the government not to prosecute. If the original decision to file the case was the result of (justifiable) prosecutorial discretion, then why cannot a subsequent prosecutor also exercise discretion to drop it? Must corruption or ill motive, either in the decision to prosecute him originally, or in the decision to seek a dismissal, necessarily be the motive? Just asking, because it seems like everyone, whether pro or anti Trump, is accusing the other side of corruption. Maybe the people on the other side, whichever that side, are merely misguided and not dishonorable?

    RL formerly in Glendale (750b62) — 9/14/2020 @ 5:50 pm

    I do, in late 2016 / early 2017 there was a properly predicted investigation into Russian interference into our election. There was, and is, evidence that members of the Trump campaign were involved.. During this investigation Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversation with the Russian ambassador. The FBI knew he lied and it didn’t fool them, but that’s not the standard everyone else is held to, so it should be the one applied to him.

    Personally i think he should have gotten a short probation and a nominal fine, and that’s probably what he would have gotten if the sentencing had been done already.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  155. I understand you do not approve of the legal system, 1DaveMac, but you need to add Flynn to your list of ethically compromised people. He plead guilty to lying so we know for certain he is compromised.

    DRJ (aede82)

  156. the legal system is a very scary thing, Ms. DRJ

    it hides in your closet

    it hides under your bed

    it waits for you to fall asleep so it can sneak up on you and suck out your brains

    but you can make it go away if you pull the blanket over your head

    nk (1d9030)

  157. NJRob 153:

    The bolded word that I put substitute symbols for is banned. I’m guessing it annoyed the owner of the blog. Insulting Trump and his supporters is fair game though.

    The bolded word is the abbreviation for Trump *Derangement Syndrome*. Isn’t banning those words being courteous to Trump supporters because it prevents commenters using them as a shorthand insult of Trump, et al?

    DRJ (aede82)

  158. TDS is banned?

    nk (1d9030)

  159. Isn’t TDS an insult at Trump critics, like Orange Man Bad, because it characterizes their criticism as pathological and not reasoned? Also, i don’t think it’s banned.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  160. No.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  161. Are you sure? I thought it started way back with Bush and “BDS” to describe the code pink morons who thought W was the 2nd coming of Hitler.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  162. Ok. Please explain, Rob.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  163. I assume Rob thinks that Trump insults are welcomed here so his disagreement is that the ban is not intended to be courteous, but I am not sure.

    DRJ (46c88f)

  164. You are correct DRJ and we see it by the remarks that often happen on this site. Plenty of insulting discourse is excused or ignored as long as it is focused on insulting Trump and his supporters.

    And the excuse is that it is not specifically targeting an individual posting here when we know that is just silly. The remarks are meant to demean and insult those who read them.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  165. I think pro-Trump remarks demean and insult the intelligence of those who read them. To quote Mr. President Donald J. Trump speaking about the evangelicals who prayed for him: “Can you believe that sh!t? Can you believe that people believe that sh!t?”

    nk (1d9030)

  166. Plenty of insulting discourse is excused or ignored as long as it is focused on insulting Trump and his supporters.

    Insulting Trump and his supporters doesn’t breach the commenting rules, unless specific commenters here are personally insulted. In other words, deal with it.

    Paul Montagu (cad685)

  167. DRJ,

    the prosecution rests.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  168. the prosecution rests.

    If you don’t like it, ask Patterico to change the commenting rules more to your liking, because you don’t set the rules and you have no authority to enforce your own personal set of rules over others. It’s not that hard.
    Patterico’s rules are here, which are basically that personal attacks and mischaracterizing others’ arguments are not allowed.

    Paul Montagu (cad685)

  169. Yes, the phrase TDS is banned. I will approve comments that discuss it, but comments that consist of “man you sure have TDS” add no content and I do not miss them. If I could find a way to ban the phrase “Orange Man Bad” without causing untold numbers of comments to go into moderation in an unintended fashion, I would.

    My stars, NJRob, I have taken away all your tools of persuasion! First I remove your ability to call Trump critics deranged and now I admit that if I could remove a contentless phrase that airily discounts Trump’s ignorance, incompetence, and corruption, I would. The prosecution rests! The case is proved! Discourse is dead!!!!!!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  170. I kept it a secret because I didn’t want people to start using code words to get around it and yet convey the same simpleminded idiotic content. It’s not seeing those letters in succession that bothers me, but the groupthink and utter disgusting herd mentality that undergirds the mindless repetition of that moronic term.

    But now the cat’s out of the bag, and people for whom “TDS” is a Core Concept will pull an NJRob and try to get across the message in other ways. Sheep gonna sheep, and if you ban “BAAA!” they’ll bleat in some other fashion, won’t they?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  171. You are correct DRJ and we see it by the remarks that often happen on this site. Plenty of insulting discourse is excused or ignored as long as it is focused on insulting Trump and his supporters.

    And the excuse is that it is not specifically targeting an individual posting here when we know that is just silly. The remarks are meant to demean and insult those who read them.

    I do this to give you the chance to play the victim, which is important to you.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  172. Thanks for the insult Patterico.

    I told whembly what was banned. I surmised why you did it.

    I responded to DRJ’s remarks about the biases that are permitted and which are not. The next 2 comments responded with insults backing up my remarks.

    Then the owner of the blog insults me directly and tries to mock me for it.

    Thank you again. I see I am not welcome here any longer.

    Have a good day.

    NJRob (eb56c3)

  173. A search shows the last time the word “Trumpalo” was used in a post here was in August 2018, over two years ago.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  174. We lost someone over the inability to use the term TDS.

    Can we do it again? If I could drive away every single person who resorts to that term, my life would improve considerably.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  175. You’re welcome here, NJRob, but the term TDS is not. If that is truly a dealbreaker for you, then you’re not who I thought you were and it’s no loss, frankly.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  176. We lost someone over the inability to use the term TDS.

    Can we do it again? If I could drive away every single person who resorts to that term, my life would improve considerably.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 9/15/2020 @ 9:57 am

    Patterico, your statement is not correct. NJRob was clear that he was leaving because he felt the application of the commenting rules permit insults at Trump supporters, but not insults at the Trump critics.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  177. We lost someone over the inability to use the term XXX.

    Can we do it again? If I could drive away every single person who resorts to that term, my life would improve considerably.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 9/15/2020 @ 9:57 am

    Patterico, your statement is not correct. NJRob was clear that he was leaving because he felt the application of the commenting rules permit insults at Trump supporters, but not insults at the Trump critics.

    reposting to avoid moderation.

    Time123 (53ef45)

  178. FWIW, I’m sorry to see Rob go.

    He always seemed to have a chip on his shoulder, but nearly all Trump fans take criticism of their hero personally.

    Dave (1bb933)

  179. Time123,

    Fair enough. He’s wrong. Ragspierre is banned, for example. Did he seem like a Trump fan?

    I don’t like personal attacks from anyone, and I don’t see that NJRob provided any evidence of any. His only reference was to generalized comments from nk directed at nobody in particular.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  180. That said, I take it personally when people attack me personally, and I felt that NJRob was doing that here. Perhaps I’m wrong. Anyway, break time is over, back to work, talk amongst yourselves.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  181. Rob is probably better off reading poetry to his captive subordinates.

    Paul Montagu (cad685)

  182. Time123,

    Fair enough. He’s wrong. Ragspierre is banned, for example. Did he seem like a Trump fan?

    I don’t like personal attacks from anyone, and I don’t see that NJRob provided any evidence of any. His only reference was to generalized comments from nk directed at nobody in particular.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 9/15/2020 @ 10:12 am

    One thing I’ve noticed is that banning / mod decisions usually happen after there’s a request for moderation.

    I think there’s an erroneous assumption that the mods are patrolling the comments looking for violations. I don’t think that’s how it works, but that would be consistent with what people have said.

    I can’t recall the last time I saw a Trump supporter ask for an apology for what they perceive as an insult and then ask a Mod to get involved.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  183. Rob is probably better off reading poetry to his captive subordinates.

    Paul Montagu (cad685) — 9/15/2020 @ 10:14 am

    what was the point of saying that? Rob’s provided a lot of good commentary. I don’t agree with him often lately but there’s no reason to belittle him.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  184. what was the point of saying that? Rob’s provided a lot of good commentary.

    That’s your opinion, Time. My experience has been a series of insults and bad faith from him. I’ve also interacted with him multiple times at Hotair, where he showed his true stripes. Good riddance.

    Paul Montagu (cad685)

  185. @Patterico… I apologize for contribution to the acrimony here with the labeling.

    That’s why I tried to keep it at “Trump critics” and “Biden critics”.

    whembly (c30c83)

  186. I will miss NJRob, if only for his contrary views. He would probably be happier here, which is far more intolerant of anti-Trump views and takes Q Anon much more seriously than PP.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  187. I’ll miss him telling people who are being careful of coronavirus that they are “afraid of life.”

    Patterico (115b1f)

  188. I thought that was Gryph?
    Wasn’t NJRob’s thing that the left only wants control and they wouldn’t rest until they made him take a knee?

    Time123 (b87ded)

  189. But I used the word “Trumpalo” in a post as recently as more tha two years ago so really the insults are COMING FROM INSIDE THE BLOG

    Weird how a guy who is not “afraid of life” is afraid of nk mocking Trump supporters, or me caustically responding to whining about how I am squelching expression by banning a groupthink sheep term used to call others “deranged” because they dare criticize a corrupt and narcissistic moron.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  190. I thought that was Gryph?
    Wasn’t NJRob’s thing that the left only wants control and they wouldn’t rest until they made him take a knee?

    I guess he had more than one “thing”:

    I am responsible for myself and my family. You are responsible for your own. I pay enough for the welfare of others through taxation and insurance. As do you. If you’re afraid of life, stay home.

    — NJRob

    Nothing insulting about that!

    NJRob can dish out the insults but he can’t take them.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  191. I stand corrected.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  192. Five years ago something like this would have made me feel bad.

    Now I am used to seeing people I thought were friends abandon me because of their fealty to one of the most depraved and awful humans to walk the Earth who hasn’t actually beaten or murdered or raped anyone.

    I’m hardened to it now. My heart has become cold to such people. I recognize who my real friends are and if you’re abandoning me because you’re butthurt over Donald ^&*^*& Trump, you were never my friend to begin with. And I react accordingly.

    Harsh but fair!

    Patterico (115b1f)

  193. This blog is much smaller than it used to be. My hope is to make it even smaller.

    The quality of discussion improves as the partisan hacks depart, one by one.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  194. @Patterico… I like tangoing with you on this subject. You really do make me think about these things, even if I disagree with you.

    Hell, even though in this post you believe Sullivan will grant the motion… I don’t.

    The Gleeson amici counter-argument gives him enough cover to deny the motion. (In which both the DOJ and Flynn will immediately appeal).

    whembly (c30c83)

  195. Yes evidence used to matter, so did attacks by sheltered and well funded terrorists, the fact that point has to be made here.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  196. We know what general flynns career has been, we know who the opposite side are.

    Bolivar di griz (7404b5)

  197. The quality of discussion improves as the partisan hacks depart, one by one.
    Patterico (115b1f) — 9/15/2020 @ 12:36 pm

    I completely agree. To that end, I have offered my advice/ correction to those commenters who, I think, can bring more to the conversations on this site. Those who are “coach-able” have upped their game.

    Shout out to the following commenter:

    what was the point of saying that? Rob’s provided a lot of good commentary. I don’t agree with him often lately but there’s no reason to belittle him.
    Time123 (b87ded) — 9/15/2020 @ 10:23 am

    I laud you for the thoughtful attempt to gently admonish Paul and to acknowledge Rob’s contributions. I concur with your opinion.

    felipe (023cc9)

  198. Now I am used to seeing people I thought were friends abandon me because of their fealty to one of the most depraved and awful humans to walk the Earth who hasn’t actually beaten or murdered or raped been convicted of raping anyone.

    lurker (d8c5bc)

  199. This blog is much smaller than it used to be. My hope is to make it even smaller.

    The quality of discussion improves as the partisan hacks depart, one by one.

    Patterico (115b1f) — 9/15/2020 @ 12:36 pm

    I appreciate this blog and enjoy commenting here.

    Time123 (b87ded)

  200. I don’t think NJRob said he was leaving exactly. I hope he sticks around.

    And, I hope to see Haiku and Kishnevi comment here again.

    beer ‘n pretzels (28dc8a)

  201. I’d like to see some of them come back. I also think this blog is a bit old school in how free people are to say what they want, in an era of intense fringe domination of discussion. It’s too tedious to clean it up, no one wants an echo chamber, and there’s a ton of free content, day in and out, that most readers here do not have the work ethic to produce. So maybe folks who come here specifically because of the Trump critics, to troll them with how wrong they are, so do that with same respect they would like to get. That isn’t the norm.

    A lot of folks come here wanting to generate the drama, wanting to make the service of the posters harder, because they really don’t want blogs like this to exist. I don’t put NJRob in that group, but you know who you are.

    Dustin (4237e0)

  202. I laud you for the thoughtful attempt to gently admonish Paul and to acknowledge Rob’s contributions.

    I’ll consider myself gently and thoughtfully admonished, felipe.

    Paul Montagu (cad685)

  203. After some consideration I can clearly state, consider yourself, one of us.

    felipe (023cc9)

  204. Maybe I have been too mean to NJRob. I’m very sensitive to the “this blog is nothing but TDS” accusations but he probably didn’t mean to be doing that.

    Patterico (115b1f)

Leave a Reply

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


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7623 secs.