Audio of DC Circuit Court Oral Arguments – Judge Emmet Sullivan -vs- Michael Flynn

In the case against Michael T. Flynn the DC Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments this morning for a petition for Writ of Mandamus. Circuit Court Judges: ²Karen Henderson, ¹Robert Wilkins and Neomi Rao are presiding Judges.

Arguing before the court: Flynn defense attorney Ms. Sidney Powell; Mr. Jeffrey Wall, deputy US solicitor general argued for the government representing the position of the DOJ; and Ms. Beth A. Wilkinson representing the position of Judge Emmet Sullivan.

  • Ms. Sidney Powell Begins through @27:40 (Foundation)
  • Mr. Jeffrey Wall Begins @27:50 – 01:12:35 (Meat of Issues)
  • Ms. Beth Wikkinson Begins @01:12:35

AUDIO of the Hearing Below:

.

¹Judge Robert Wilkins is politically adverse to the interests of the DOJ/Defense and wants to deny the petition for intervention.  Judge Wilkins fabricates and manufacturers an irrelevant hypothetical example based on race to highlight his intent. [See @44:48]

²Behind the arguments of Judge Karen Henderson; it is visible she wants to deny the DOJ/Defense petition based on PC concerns that Judge Emett Sullivan is a black jurist. [See @1:00:37]

Prediction: The defense petition for the Writ of Mandamus will be denied (2-1); based, mostly on activist political intentions of Henderson and Wilkins.  However, there is an outside possibility for a limiting Mandamus ruling, where the DC Circuit Court will put limits on Judge Sullivan’s efforts to probe the motives of the DOJ.

The July 16th hearing with Judge Sullivan will almost certainly take place.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Dept Of Justice, media bias, Spygate, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

257 Responses to Audio of DC Circuit Court Oral Arguments – Judge Emmet Sullivan -vs- Michael Flynn

  1. Chewbarkah says:

    The FBI/DoJ cabal and now Sullivan have had their knee of Flynn’s neck for THREE YEARS. The Appeals Court needs to stop this lynching.

    Liked by 17 people

  2. Publius2016 says:

    Prediction: 3 to 0

    Dismissed

    Fokker is controlling…only reason DOJ dropped charges

    Liked by 3 people

    • TarsTarkas says:

      Disagree. Social Justice is controlling, precedents and the constitution be damned.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Bogeyfree says:

        Agree, rule of law and case law is thrown out the window, it’s now all about how you feel.

        And if you are a republican, you are guilty and if a democrat you are innocent, no need having trials anymore just look up how the accused is Registered to vote.

        Liked by 11 people

        • YeahYouRight says:

          Bogey, the panel would have accepted the case or put such requirements on Sullivan (vs invitation for DoJ) if it was this cut and dried.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Yes, it’s clear the left has obviously infiltrated every fokking aspect of government and the BUREAUCRACY.

          I listened to the highlights, and it’s clear, Flynn is indeed lying on hot concrete with Sullivan’s knee on his neck. Can Flynn breathe?

          Doesn’t matter to them.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Nessie509 says:

      I agree.
      The appeals court judge plays devil’s advocate against every presentation, both defense attorney and prosecutor.
      Case Law ultimately rules.

      Liked by 4 people

    • ncedgar says:

      That whole line of “what if a black man and white policeman” along with “Sullivan’s court has not rendered a decision,” says there is no dismissal. They will all be back in August after the DOJ files their Writ of Mandamus.

      Like

  3. Bogeyfree says:

    I wonder if this would still be going on had Barr indicted those who framed and set Flynn up vs just dismissing the case.

    When is Barr going to realize that playing pattie cake won’t accomplish anything.

    Liked by 7 people

    • madeline says:

      Barr should have pulled the plug on this thing when it was dismissed. I just don’t get this AG. Is he for Rule of Law or not? I guess he can’t see how all the lawlessness we see in his ivory tower.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Newhere says:

      DOJ’s attorney Jeffrey Wall also admitted they didn’t file their OWN motion for writ of mandamus because they were still busy dithering over the pros and cons when Flynn filed his own, so they figured, why bother.

      PATHETIC.

      As these arguments display, nothing in this case can be taken for granted. DOJ immediately should have filed on its own behalf.

      Also in IMO they were unprepared to clearly answer the one question fundamental to granting the mandamus, which is “what does ‘leave of court’ mean if we direct a district court to grant a motion to dismiss before it has completed its inquiry?”

      The reason this was the KEY question stems from the posture of the case; Judge Sullivan hasn’t yet decided on dismissal. Therefore, ordering that Sullivan dismiss begs the question whether a district judge is obligated or entitled to conduct ANY inquiry under the “leave of court” provision, and if not, how does the provision then have any meaning? And if so, what are the parameters, and why haven’t Flynn and DOJ asked the DC Circuit for a write of mandamus requiring Judge Sullivan to limit any inquiry to the lawful parameters for a “leave of court” inquiry. Indeed, I believe the DOJ should have filed such a writ, including a “fall-back” position that the Circuit court reign in the circus to a lawfully permissible inquiry.

      As to the answer to the question — what would a lawful inquiry look like under the “leave of court” provision — it seems the answer to this question is that the “leave of court” provision is intended ONLY to protect the criminal defendant, and once a judicial inquiry is satisfied that a prosecutor’s dismissal will not result in prejudice or harm to the defendant — the inquiry is EXHAUSTED. This inquiry could be appropriate even when, as here, the defendant consents. As to the “presumption of regularity” — there is no need to scrutinize the prosecution according to this standard except and to the extent of protecting the criminal defendant. In other words, the “leave of court” provision NEVER stands for the proposition that a district court must satisfy itself as to why the executive branch has decided not to proceed in prosecuting a citizen except with respect to that citizen’s rights. Otherwise, prosecutorial decisions are the sole prerogative of the Executive.

      Linking “leave of court” and “presumption of regularity” to protecting the criminal defendant is both consistent with precedent and perhaps the only way to construe those provisions without muddling and intruding upon separation of power between the judicial and executive branches.

      The DOJ should have been all over this. Even if they would argue a different rule — they needed to argue *some* rule, and instead they seemed to stumble into a position on this issue as the questioning proceeded, offering up options seemingly on the fly.

      Of course, none of us will forget for a second that General Flynn and the country are suffering through ALL OF THIS because of the mess made by the Justice Department in the first place. ALL OF THIS IS THEIR FAULT, and yet, even now they remain hapless and inept. Unwilling to forthrightly own up to their own grievous wrongdoing and mistakes, and even still still hoping to slither away without meaningful accountability, while depending on Sidney Powell and her team to do all the heavy lifting and General Flynn to shoulder all of the sacrifice.

      DISGRACEFUL.

      Liked by 7 people

  4. farmerren says:

    I cannot get over Wilkins’ hypothetical. All of a sudden they were arguing Floyd! Did Wilkins not know how political he came across? How can he get away with this? The Q & A made good sense until Wilkins showed his prejudice there.

    I’ve always been respectfully envious of the brain power and discipline it takes for people to get into/out of law school. …shaking my head…

    Liked by 5 people

    • Ken Lawson says:

      Getting in and out of law school and passing the bar simply means you can pass a test, it does not mean you’re brilliant or even logical. Huge numbers of “journalists” these days have done it and there’s a huge lack of intellect in that bunch. Don’t let the degree or even passing the bar fool you. Really good legal minds are extremely rare. Just look at how few there are on SCOTUS, for example.

      Liked by 7 people

      • dayallaxeded says:

        A JD degree used to say a lot more about intellect and mental and rhetorical acuity. Then affirmative action and least common denominator standards happened. Only slightly less so for bar exams. Probably why journos get JDs, but can’t pass the bar.

        Liked by 1 person

    • FrankieZee says:

      Another KICK in the GUT for all conservatives. There is no justice in this country anymore. Corrupt Judges, Corrupt Cops, Corrupt Politicians, Corrupt FBI, Corrupt DOJ, Corrupt CIA. I am not advocating violence, but one of these days, one of these corrupt judges is going to make such a bad decision, that when he or she walks out of the courthouse someone may take them out.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. TexSwede says:

    One of the comments above indicated that if the President pardons Gen. Flynn he can’t serve in the administration. Why would that be the case? Unless I am wrong (which is a distinct possibility) I would think that removes all liabilities. If not, is there a provision in federal law that allows for an expunction? In Texas, the Code of Criminal Procedure has provisions for expunging all records regarding an arrest, etc. Please educate me on this.

    The President should prepare his pardon and it should be written to blow the doors off this travesty. Whereas the FBI did their things ….Whereas Judge Sullivan (call him out by name) violated Gen. Flynn’s rights, violated prior case law, demonstrated bias and unethical behavior from the bench, etc., and just rip it. It is time to go scorched earth on these traitors. I am thinking it needs to be done before any more of the crap goes on. If it gets to the SC and Roberts screws the General, it will be harder for a pardon and the MSM and traitors will have more backing for calling the President’s hand. Time to end this sh*t. Waiting isn’t going to buy any goodwill from these crooks.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Bryan Alexander says:

      Some lawyers can correct me, but a Presidential Pardon does not clear your record. The record is not expunged, simply truncated. Flynn would serve no time. But he would still have pled guilty to lying to the FBI. With that on his record, it would be thrown in his face anytime his name came up for a position.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Mr e-man says:

        And it would be “proof” that Trump is a Putin puppet and any and all investigations into him was valid.

        Oh, and because of that, he should not be reelected.

        That will be the story from the MSM and half of America.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Ken Lawson says:

        At Flynn’s age, there probably won’t be too many positions he cares to apply for. If it’s for a position appointed by a president, it wouldn’t matter if the record was expunged because the Dems wouldn’t drop the matter anyway. Flynn is seen as a hero on the right and that would carry him just fine for positions he may want in the future. Although he may also be tired enough that he doesn’t care to take any positions and hopefully he’ll be made whole financially, even if it’s through donations from the public who care about him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Terra Rayner says:

        No i believe a pardon deletes the record but a commutation just ends the sentence.

        Like

      • Dan says:

        I am not a lawyer but I do speak english:) A pardon set’s aside the penalty for a crime. Guilt is not dismissed but all punishment is wiped away. A commutation truncates the punishment for the crime bit also does not dismiss the guilt. The only way for Flynn to come out of this as a legally innocent man is if the charges are dismissed, he is acquitted (too late – he didn’t contest the charges), or his conviction overturned on appeal. DOJ has attempted to dismiss the charge (although in a quite inept manner) and, so far, the judicial branch is encroaching on executive authority by resisting it.

        Therefore the only way Flynn will be exonerated is if he wins an appeal at a higher court. As we see from the recent SCOTUS decision that churches can be closed and regulated, which is an utterly indefensible decision on the basis of the law, the courts are corrupted. We are approaching a point where conviction in a US court will be a badge of honor.

        Like

    • The Demon Slick says:

      If he’s found not guilty he can sue. There will be discovery and document production. There will be bad actors forced to testify under oath. The left must avoid this at all costs. A convicted and pardoned Flynn cannot sue. At least not as easily.

      Liked by 4 people

      • richard verney says:

        Exactly, it is very important for a number of reasons that Flynn is not pardonned. It certainly would be very premature to do so, until all avenues of redress have been exhausted.

        Flynn is pivotal in blowing open the deep state. If further proceedings are pursued before Sullivan, the DOJ may have to claim that the first 2 FISA warrants were illegitimatley obtained, and therefore all evidence obatined incidental to those is illegitimate, and/or that the Mueller investigation was illegal and that the Flynn charge is fruit of the posioned tree.

        Liked by 3 people

    • YeahYouRight says:

      I don’t want Flynn pardoned, and Flynn doesn’t want a pardon. Pardons suggest someone did something wrong and were excused or “pardoned” for the wrongdoing. Flynn deserves the full benefit of a fair trial, which he cannot get in political stooge Sullivan’s court, and after evidence for both sides is presented, a fair evaluation and decision made. DoJ has decided not to present evidence of Flynn’s guilt, as there is none. The first step to Flynn receiving justice is setting aside this fraudulently acquired guilty plea. Once that happens and DoJ doesn’t present evidence to prosecute, then what, “Judge” Sullivan?

      Liked by 3 people

  6. Don McAro says:

    Its just too overwhelming to overcome at this point….
    This…People annexing parts of Seattle…
    we are in a complete downward spiral

    Liked by 2 people

  7. berniekopell says:

    I disagree with Sundance as to Henderson’s motives and was encouraged that Henderson gave the DOJ two minutes of rebuttal. The last two zingers from her were very important: (1) the DOJ has to be allowed to self-correct (separation of powers); and (2) “on this record the only bad faith was in the original prosecution” (Flynn was harmed and continues to be harmed).

    In the end there is nothing left for Suspicious Sullivan to do. The DOJ motion to dismiss was fully supported, so why prolong the agony to Flynn and the govt. and the court process? The DOJ will be right back before them on mandamus if Suspicious Sullivan tries to pry into DOJ decision making.

    Henderson does not want this to be too big of a black eye on the “old hand” Sullivan, which is also why they wont remove him. The panel can issue a mealy-mouthed mandamus opinion that applauds Suspicious Sullivan for appearing to act conscientiously in a politically charged environment, but still says he went out of bounds. This lets Suspicious Sullivan save some face. But he should still be scolded for appointing a biased amicus, Gleeson was called “intemperate” by Henderson. Not exactly an insult, but also a comment tempered with venom.

    Let Wilkins write his dissent for the resistance/mob and Suspicious Sullivan’s beach friends to make clear that a judge is not just a rubber stamp and has some narrow discretion to hold hearing and evaluate the merits of the motion.

    Liked by 8 people

    • richard verney says:

      I listened to it all, and I found it very difficult to call. I was impressed by Counsel for the DOJ. He was the cream of the crop. Very calm, and answered every questioned posed with well reasoned arguments. Sydney was immdiately put on the back foot, could see the case unravelling in front of her, and this adversely impacted upon her performance. It certainly was not as calm or assured as Counsel for the DOJ.

      It would not surprise me if it turns out to be a 2:1 decision in Flynn’s favour, since it opens up a can of worms if they decline this application. Bad cases set bad law, and everyone is agreed that this is, for one reason or another, a bad case, so it is best to follow Fokker rather than seeking to make a fine distinction.

      Liked by 4 people

      • FrankieZee says:

        So when is the ruling on this?

        Like

        • regitiger says:

          don’t know…not stated..

          but

          if the court decides not to rule at all,or does rule by placing some limits on sullivan, this case goes back to sullivan..

          my guess is that this court will not rule on mandamus at this point in time. I think they are looking at allowing sullivan the opportunity first to rule on the motion to dismiss. I think that is the wrong headed decision, but I think that is what we should expect them to allow.

          16 July is the next hearing for sullivan.

          I am praying this court will understand the greater issue here and not get bogged down with process.

          LGEN Flynn has suffered and languishes for a very long time, is financially ruined and the prosecutors have left the field.

          drop the case and let this man regain his earned dignity.

          they should also do this because it would in many ways prevent sullivan from making an absolute fool of himself…in the sense that this court should be considerate of the extraordinary circumstance and obvious misconduct by this judge, it would be in the greater interest of the institution to prevent him from making another round of manure.

          but this supposes that this court of appeal is actually inclined at all to take on the bigger picture and rescue its reputation….seems they are more interested in process that true justice.

          sad…and scary.

          Liked by 1 person

    • Ken Lawson says:

      In a normal world Bernie, I’d say you’ve laid out a good argument. However, everyone here should know that the Deep State is deeply rooted in our system and the last thing they want is for Flynn to be able to talk before the election. If Flynn gets off prior to the election he can talk and tell all he knows, which will be devastating to not just the Dems, but the Deep State, which certainly includes Republicans, too.

      We know the Deep State wants Trump out of office. While they’ve been exposed to a degree in the Flynn case, they can feel somewhat safe if they can get through the election, so their goal is to at least keep this in the court process until after election day.

      That said, you can bet that at least one and more likely two of those judges are affected by the Deep State. They may be influenced by it, or even told what to do, as Sullivan probably is. So, they may be looking for a way to allow this thing to drag on until after November. It was pretty telling when Beth Wilkinson, Sullivan’s attorney, admitted that eventually the case would be dropped. Yet she doesn’t then say that we should all drop this and go home. Instead she continues to hold that Sullivan should be allowed to go through is process. If that doesn’t sound like stalling to keep this in court I don’t know what does.

      Liked by 2 people

    • An says:

      I tend to agree with this assessment. I’m no lawyer, but I studied legal procedure under a lawyer whose research was in predicting the results of Supreme Court cases and we were cautioned that questioning one side harshly does *not* necessarily mean they’ll rule against that side. It’s often done for the purpose of making a strong argument against objections that are considered likely.

      Now, I agree that I don’t think that this excuses the race-baiting hypothetical, which the DoJ answered admirably, but that doesn’t implicate Henderson, who declined to join in on that nonsense. I read that, in fact, as Wilkins knowing he’s outnumbered on this panel and positioning things to draw in as many judges as possible for an en banc review. Watch for breathless op-eds using this to tie into BLM to explain the ‘harm’ of deciding this on well settled law.

      Did anyone else catch the part where the amicus was explicitly said to be there to create a controversy for Sullivan to solve because parties aren’t opposed? I don’t see how that should lead to anything but dismissal and I don’t agree with the circular logic that you have to have standing for dismissal of a case. Otherwise, doesn’t that mean that dismissal never takes effect whenever they lack standing? Or were they saying that was only because of the ‘with prejudice’ part? It’s a bit disturbing how much they’re arguing to expand this, though, given the past precedents, especially when Sullivan’s lawyer rapidly retreated from defending huge amounts of both her own and the amicus brief.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Bromdale says:

      Perhaps the collective view of the panel will be that a white judge and an Indian-American judge slapping down an African-American judge would not make for good optics …

      Like

  8. TigerBear says:

    This is absolute lunacy!! INJUSTICE to the extreme and imagine what these judges could, would and most likely have done to those who can’t afford a Sidney Powell type attorney.

    When will our cold anger finally turn to red hot rage and folks snap?? I fear the volatility of what looks like is coming, and soon. 😳

    If General Flynn receives a pardon can President Trump rehire him?

    May God bless America

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Ohio Cyclist says:

    For those who are having trouble playing the audio using the above youtube link, it is available at …

    https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings.nsf/

    or at

    [audio src="https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2019.nsf/FB1BF1063411B091852585850056852D/$file/20-5143.mp3" /]

    If the three panel rules against Flynn, then I suppose an en banc hearing could be requested.

    If the circuit court and Sullivan insist on the continuation of the circus, then it may prove to be an opportunity for Powell to highlight DOJ and FBI wrongdoing to an even greater extent.

    Liked by 5 people

  10. Rick says:

    God help us, our Country is doomed.

    Like

    • threethreethreethistime says:

      sure seems that way. They’ve been allowed to seep into every corner of our government & institutions and now it’s too toxic and too late to turn it all around.

      Like

  11. guest4ever says:

    Bubby—-AND, if General Flynn does, indeed, have to get a pardon, then it would be more difficult for him to testify. Bastds!!!!

    Like

  12. guest4ever says:

    Can Conservatives dox somebody? Or bodies?

    Like

  13. guest4ever says:

    Seems like it might be a great time to have a million+ American march on DC DS!

    Liked by 4 people

  14. Issy says:

    I listened to it live. I wasn’t really encouraged, but still hopeful.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Joe says:

    Judge Wilkins lays Obama’s plan in his own hypothetical.

    Judge Wilkins says:

    00:54:29 “That the district court can deny the motion and then the political chips can fall where they may, AND PERHAPS UNDER PRESSURE OF THE PUBLIC OR CONGRESS OR WHATEVER, THE DISTRICT COURT MAY NOT BE ABLE ITSELF TO FORCE GOVERNMENT TO PROSECUTE THE CASE. MAYBE THROUGH THE OPERATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH PRESSURES FROM PUBLIC AND THE MEDIA, A NEW PROSECUTOR IS APPOINTED AND THE CASE PROCEEDS. WHY ISN’T THAT EXACTLY WHAT LEAVE OF COURT SHOULD OPERATE TO DO?

    00:55:43 BUT IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T MAKE THE CASE GO AWAY AND THE CASE IS IN LIMBO, THEN WHILE IT IS IN LIMBO, PRESSURE COULD BE BROUGHT TO BEAR ON THE GOVERNMENT TO RECONSIDER DECISION, RIGHT?

    Liked by 1 person

    • gsonFIT says:

      Seems like even Sullivan’s attorney said lets see what is going to happen if the lower court is left alone. But this would only be a delay , because if Sidney is not granted her motion then Sullivan’s only choice is to dismiss or Flynn will certainly appeal any sentencing. If this is accurate then the appellate court has already made Sullivan’s decision for him, dismissal.

      If the dismissal is a forgone conclusion pragmatism and logic would dictate ending this now. Is there a legal doctrine that recognizes a right not to delay the inevitable?

      Liked by 2 people

    • richard verney says:

      Yes, but in both those examples, it needs the Government/the DOJ to take action. The Judge never suggested that whilst the case was in limbo, the Court could step in and prosecute the case, nor that the Court could step in and appoint someone to prosecute the case.

      Therefore this line of argument does not justify the stance that Sullivan has taken. What it is saying is that Sullivan could decline to grant leave to dismiss the case, and than that is it. That is the extent of his power. The case remains in limbo. no judgement is entered against Flynn, and Flynn is not sentenced, and does not go to jail (or what have you). And then presumably if the Government does not step in, after a period of time, the case would fall foul of the doctrine of laches. How long? Well that is like answering how long is a piece of string?

      The central issue is that Sullivan is doing more than he is empowered to do. Given that dismissal is subject to leave of the Court, Sullivan might have been entitled to not have rubber stamped the motion to dismiss, and to have called both parties in, and questioned the DOJ’s motives. Perhaps even requiring them to show further good cause, and produce further evidence. But he is not allowed to do more than that. This is where he goes off the rails, and this was not actually made clear by Ms Powell or by Counsel for the DOJ.

      Liked by 1 person

    • dayallaxeded says:

      DOinJ can call the case for trial. Call the FIBer who first said Flynn wasn’t lying, then rest. Motion for directed verdict. Done. Checkmate.

      Like

  16. Arrest Soros says:

    If Barr and the DOJ don’t work their collectives off as if they were Flynn’s defense lawyers, then they are just as bad as the racist, corrupt judges and former prosecutors and agents.
    It is clear as day that Flynn was entrapped.
    It is clear as day Flynn and his family was made to suffer for 4 years.
    It is clear as day that it should be the agents, former prosecutors and even Flynn’s former lawyers in the dock, not Flynn.
    The fact that this TRAVESTY will go on for at least another month is proof that the system is corrupted and broken beyond repair.

    I’m starting to have some sympathy for those who are tangled in this broken and corrupt system and understand why they resist and even sometimes riot.

    DIRTY AND CORRUPT TO THE CORE.

    Liked by 6 people

  17. FreyFelipe says:

    “Behind the arguments of Judge Karen Henderson; it is visible she wants to deny the DOJ/Defense petition based on PC concerns that Judge Emett Sullivan is a black jurist. “

    Everything about this is ridiculousness even playing the Race Card as Sullivan looks all of about 1/8 more black than your average white man. If he went over to Africa and said he was he a black man, they would think he was crazy.

    Liked by 1 person

    • mr.piddles says:

      They’d probably say: “You the darkest IRISH BOY we ever seen around here!”

      Middle name “Gael”. Last name “Sullivan”. What the Hell is goin’ on there? Looks like his father was a “minority cop”, so maybe he had mixed race grandparents on his father’s side? Who knows. Whatever.

      In in any case, you’d think maybe the Irish laddies would stick together on this one…

      Liked by 1 person

      • FreyFelipe says:

        There are Irish darker than him. They may have some Roman ancestors way back. There are Norwegians darker than him. May have some Spanish ancestors way back when, women captured by Viking raiders. He is obviously mostly white, but says he is black as he knows it’s black privilege, not white privilege that reigns – see so called “affirmative action”.

        Liked by 2 people

        • mr.piddles says:

          Ah. Roman Empire. By that point Roman Army had soldiers from all corners of their Empire, yes? So his lineage could go way back to Britain, I suppose. Would make sense.

          Like

  18. Rix Six says:

    I recently got called up for jury duty. The date to show up at the courthouse hasn’t come up yet. I really hope I’m not chosen to sit on a jury. I really don’t need anymore exposure to the pretzel logic that the court system thrives on.

    Liked by 1 person

    • DJ Snyder says:

      Unless it’s a slam dunk case, (and I mean ZERO room for doubt) I would intentionally hang the jury at this point.

      Liked by 1 person

    • James Groome says:

      Go get on the jury and if you suspect any illicit behavior by the govt or prosecutors…. HANG IT!

      The DOJ is either going to prosecute their own or we MUST exonerate our fellow citizens!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Wear a WHITE LIVES MATTER TOO tee shirt when interviewed and don’t worry about serving.

      Liked by 2 people

    • bessie2003 says:

      You should go, be on a jury; everyone should be so lucky.

      To know that one single voice can end travesties of pretzel logic, even be in a position to nullify a law that has become twisted as we see in this case, and then to know you have that power to discern, and more important knowing you would want someone with that attitude on a jury that would be sitting in judgement on something against you, that’s like one of the best gifts we can give a fellow citizen.

      It does take a willingness to cede one’s time, but really, I would want someone open to hearing both sides of an argument instead of being stuck of having a decision over my life left up to a judge such as Sullivan any day of the week.

      Something to consider. It’s an eye-opening experience one should, as a citizen, experience at least once in their lifetime.

      Liked by 3 people

  19. Doppler says:

    You have to pretend that things you know to be true are not true. No one but Sidney, that I heard, maybe Wall in brief aside, mentions the clear abuse of prosecutorial power revealed in the motion to dismiss. Instead, they talk forever about the Gleeson allegation that it is Barr and Jensen who were abusing their power. It gives me a headache.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. NJMAGA says:

    They are all in one big club, corrupt and highly political and I think they are also mindful of surviving beyond POTUS. I wonder if Chief Justice Roberts still thinks there are no Obama and Bush Judges.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Raptors2020 says:

      NJMAGA:
      I fear that many people are now frightened of the inquisition/purge of all Trump Administration people that will follow a Biden victory, including the generals who are suddenly denouncing the President.

      They will certainly try to impeach Justice Kavanaugh, for example.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. MouseTheLuckyDog says:

    Over at red state they think Flynn will win 2-1.

    Like

  22. Paul Gallant says:

    Counterpoint: Wilkins a lost cause…Would not Judge Karen Henderson not be concerned on the substance of Jeffrey Wall’s implicit warning that if delayed the case opens itself up to the DOJ defending its position to dismiss and exposing all the malfeasance that went on in this case. Would she not want to bury it and avoid the confrontation between the Judiciary and Executive branch?

    Like

  23. evergreen says:

    HOW is it that the DOJ can admit that the foundation of its FIRST MOVE against Flynn was non-existent, yet nothing happens to anyone and no liability attaches to the DOJ?

    The prosecution divulged evidence that it coerced a plea out of Flynn and conspired to conceal that fact from downstream relevance. That HAS to be illegal.

    Liked by 2 people

    • mr.piddles says:

      If you are inclined to believe Barr/Durham is not pulling a Whober… then the Weisman/Mueller Persecution is in Durham’s crosshairs. Barr includes the years after the initial frame-up as particularly problematic… i.e., the Weissman/Mueller Persecution.

      In that case, anything having to do with DOJ illegality would be wrapped up in Durham. The larger question is: will DOJ prosecute its own?

      Liked by 2 people

      • evergreen says:

        For all the breath that Barr has spent on discussing this topic, if there are no prosecutions, then he’s a blowhard. It really is that simple. We have real casualties stemming from real law breaking by DOJ/FBI executive leadership. No prosecution is a license to make this administration the last of the old republic.

        Like

        • evergreen says:

          Barr is only good through the election. If Trump loses, Barr and everything he has started will get stopped cold, cases tossed, and the tables turned to go after Trump and his family and supporters until the end of time. It will be unlike any previous administration, highly illegal in all the worst ways.

          Liked by 1 person

  24. @ChicagoBri says:

    I’ve posted this on other threads, but it applies here too. We do not live in the country in which we have imagined ourselves. We are not free. Our legal system is not fair. Our “press” is worse than the press in the old USSR.

    Liked by 8 people

  25. dufrst says:

    The Swamp is deep! This was my fear that the DC Circuit would rule against Flynn and this matter would be left in the hands of Justice John Roberts and that’s not the place Flynn would want this decided.

    I believe ultimately the Swamp will force Trump to pardon Flynn, but they will ensure that this happens after the Nov 2020 elections. That’s why I say, Trump should probably pardon Flynn after the DC Circuit decision to get the truth out before it’s too late. It’s obvious that Flynn has knowledge of the Swamp that it does not want to be revealed.

    Such a terrible saga for General Flynn. Praying for justice soon!

    Liked by 1 person

    • railer says:

      Yeah, I was curious whether these Deep State actors would extend this to hurt Trump, and they appear poised to do so.

      Like

  26. Heika says:

    I feel like I have missed something obvious. Given the ‘crimes’ by the DOJ and FBI in the first place – in regards to Flynn, wouldn’t it be a good thing for them to have to ‘explain themselves’ and the reason they made up the charges in the first places to the court?
    I know this is about stalling for time, to push it out as long as possible (politically) but wouldn’t this be the next step if Sullivan and his lacky got their way?

    Or would that only happen if it was taken into SC? Sorry for being a bit simple here, but was sure that was the point Sullivan was pushing for. It wasn’t Barr who dun it, as we know it was the previous mob. Wouldnt sunshine be best?

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Chieftain says:

    Corrupt House.
    Corrupt Senate.
    Corrupt Judiciary.
    Corrupt FBI.
    Corrupt Military.
    Corrupt Political parties.
    Corrupt Bureaucracy.
    Corrupt MSM.
    Corrupt Newspaper Chains.
    Corrupt Universities.
    Corrupt Clergy.
    Corrupt Governors.
    Corrupt Mayors.
    Corrupt Government Scientists.
    Corrupt Corporate Boards.
    The USA is not in good moral shape.
    There are good people, too few, but decent and steadfast.
    The establishment is corrupt; it is run by the decadent immoral stuck in the ‘60s counterculture.
    This is the most important election in America in the past 100 years.

    Liked by 5 people

    • FreyFelipe says:

      If Trump does not win the election, America as any kind of shining light on the hill is over. Even if he wins, its being over is simply delayed 4 years at best. The corruption in the federal government is just too deep and too wide and too much to the bone now.

      Like

      • NJMAGA says:

        I agree. The deep state owns and runs this country and they’re not letting go. How ironic will it be if Biden wins (I still think he won’t) and the media goes back to gaslighting the country that the government is now back in the hands of the people when the exact opposite is true. I agree that after Trump we are in big trouble. God only knows what they will continue to do to him and his family. The evil I am seeing is far wider and worse than anything I imagined.

        Like

    • Friskycat says:

      So right! Hippies that never grew up!

      Liked by 1 person

  28. logboom says:

    It’s things like this that drive a person to build a cabin in the mountains and live off the grid ( Ruby Ridge).

    Liked by 1 person

  29. bullnuke says:

    It is not smart to assume how the judges will decide. Makes sense to me to try and punch holes in each lawyer presentation. I can’t see this appellate court wanting to be spanked by the Supreme Court which has normally ruled in favor of separation of powers.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. Gus says:

    Haha. You want to have a hearing, fine, let’s have a hearing. Sidney needs to subpoena everyone in the Deep State, DOJ, FBI, Obama Administration, call them to testify and prove how Flynn was framed. She can explain to the whole world what went on and why it would be fair to dismiss the case. She can prove the injustice of this prosecution if she really wants to. She can also subpoena this Judge emmit as well and depose him, find out if he has any contact with any of the swamp creatures. Let’s get Contreras in there as well. Really, she can break it open if she wants to.

    Like

  31. I hope Sundance posts on Tom Fitton’s appearance on Lou Dobbs this evening.

    Like

  32. Tazok says:

    Judge Wilkins compared Flynn to a white police officer pleading guilty to a civil crimes violation harming a black victim and the prosecution citing Brady evidence being afraid of biased jury failing to convict a white man. Can’t make this up. He spent 15 minutes on this, bringing it up in the 2nd and the 3rd briefs.

    Like

  33. Wethal says:

    I wonder if the panel will split the difference. Sullivan exceeded his authority in appointing and amicus and in indicating that he wanted to go into the reasons for the original indictment, plea, and for the decision to dismiss. The appointment of Gleeson is stricken, and Sullivan can’t take any further evidence..

    But Sullivan gets his hearing, but he has to stick to the existing record and follow Fokker and Rule 48(a). He has another diatribe against Flynn in court, and maybe adds a this is a “politicized DOJ!” screed to bolster the DNC campaign issue of Trump politicizing the DOJ.

    Just a thought.

    Liked by 1 person

    • RandomAussie says:

      The court addressed something like this in the hearing, and it sounded like they were worried that if they said “Sullivan can rule but can’t have an amicus”, they would end up making a lot of new rules about what the lower court can or cannot do in terms of going into things. Courts don’t like making lots of new precedent when they can get away with doing only a little (eg granting mandamus)…

      Like

  34. Doug Amos says:

    All because Pense allowed himself to be entrapped; envision what President Trump endures and will every day for the rest of his life.

    Like

    • regitiger says:

      I think that matter is unsettled either way about what actually happened to *OR BY* pence.

      it stinks..and it’s not settled at all.

      what we do know is that flynn was tossed over the rails with not even a brief fight to defend him.

      I FIND THAT MORE THAN CONSPICUOUS.

      I did at the time it happened, and certainly that has been proven to be true to this date!

      why? I know people who served with LGEN FLYNN…he isn’t a corrupt person. at all.

      he’s intelligent and a fierce defender and practitioner of excellent values.

      I’ve got a hunch he probably told Pence to go eff himself in a not so small way.

      and THAT is what created a reason for Pence to push him out.

      others have assembled other no so pleasant musings about the reality of pence the elected official too, that is pretty compelling to wade through.

      I dunno about Pence. There is that instinctive skepticism about what he really is about in all of this.

      Like

  35. theoldgoat says:

    If judges insist on being political instead of being guided by the law, impeach them. That is not their job, their job is to go by the law, not what PC or racial politics says. Start impeaching these activist judges and it will be amazing how quickly they change from being political tools into being part of the justice system which is what they are supposed to be.

    I am losing all respect for the judicial system in this country. Just like our political creatures, they have over stepped their power and bounds. If this country is to survive, which I am having a hard time believing it will at this point, massive clearing out of the refuse of political and judicial activism has to take place.

    What the heck does anything racial have to do with this case? Other than in a racist’s mind, nothing. He should be impeached for that breach of jurisprudence alone. It should be that these judges have to site numerous specific cases of prior legal decisions to justify their position. If they cannot, then their opinion is moot, and thus ignored.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. avi says:

    screw the gag order
    time for Flynn to tell all.

    Like

  37. fred5678 says:

    Wilkins should be impeached for his incendiary hypothetical, playing on Floyd George incident and national rioting. He literally yelled “fire” in a crowded nation.

    IMPEACH HIS AZZ!!

    Liked by 1 person

  38. Maybe its time “we” should not worry about what LTG Flynn has to say about the Deep State and where bodies are buried.

    Perhaps we should let him get along with his life – however HE wants to and not the way WE want him to.

    The man has paid his dues to the country in more ways that one.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. THAN one not THAT one!

    Like

  40. KENT PRITCHARD JR says:

    Wall’s presentation was flawless. The harm to the DOJ and to Gen. Flynn would be real and irreparable if mandamus were denied and the circus were to continue in the District Court. And the consensus seems to be that, in such event, Judge Sullivan MAY ultimately grant the dismissal motion. But, if he were to deny it, the Appellate Court would eventually be obliged to reverse it on appeal. So, why go through the exercise? Sound point.

    Wilkinson pointed to the lack of an identifiable “leave of court” standard as a missing element of the application for a writ of mandamus. I would love to have seen Wall or Powell really double down on that lack of guidance in the statute as an invitation to declare it unconstitutionally overbroad, as applied in this case or any case, whenever the dismissal motion is unopposed. They shied away from it, focusing instead on the fulsome justification set forth by the DOJ.

    As a practical matter, the Circuit Court of Appeals will likely choose to grant or deny mandamus without having to address the statute’s constitutionality. Denying the writ based on the adequate remedy at law or granting the writ based on the DOJ’s fulsome justification avoids answereing that constitutional question.

    With a little less than five months of political runway to go, denial of the writ, sadly, seems to be the more likely course. At least we will have a distraction from the doom and gloom echo chambers that otherwise surround us.

    Like

  41. Indy0704 says:

    i heard the argument. No reference to the judge’s race was made.
    I call foul.

    Like

  42. jus wundrin says:

    What are the repubs doing? Working on a bill to prevent gubment employee suffering if theres another gubment shut down….i.e. orange man bad bill. Theyre us useless as teats on a bull, and more dangerous in my opinion than the radical left.

    Like

  43. MaineCoon says:

    Confirm s*@t political hack judges and you get a s*@- judical show.

    The s*@t show must go on.

    Like

  44. dufrst says:

    After actually listening to the entire proceeding, I believe the writ will be granted 2-1. I think the government’s counsel, Mr. Wall did an outstanding job and closed strong and I believe convinced Judge Henderson of the merits based on his excellent answers to all of her questions.

    I think Sidney Powell should be thankful for the support of the Justice Department, not that she did poorly, but that the Justice department’s counsel was able to contextualize the issues in a very humble but competent way.

    I think style does matter and I think in the end it makes it easier to hear the arguments versus the strong manner in which Ms. Powell delivered her arguments.

    Judge Wilkins is a lost cause. He will be the dissenter if any. That’s my prediction, which would be great news for Trump and most importantly Gen Flynn !

    Like

  45. Curt says:

    Anyone who thinks that this case is a one off situation with no future consequences is wrong. We are seeing a biased judge who is being allowed to overstep his authority because of a personal vendetta. Has anyone considered the leftist bias that the Durham investigation perpetrators are counting on using in any future prosecution? It doesn’t matter what the evidence is or isn’t. These activist judges are wiling to usurp justice to advance their own personal agenda. My point is that ANY case filed in the DC area will be given the same illegal treatment. We have the Spanish inquisition all over again! It’s an issue people. Ask Roger Stone; and now Gen. Flynn.

    Like

  46. RandomAussie says:

    I agree that Wilkins seemed to be fishing for reasons to deny, but I’m not so sure of your assessment of Henderson. In particular, right near the very end, she said in a question to the DOJ — “On the record before us, if there was bad faith it was in the original prosecution, so why should we not let the Article II authorities [the DOJ] self-correct [by withdrawing the prosecution]?” (To which the DOJ counsel replied basically, “Yes, you should.”)

    That certainly suggests she was leaning to their side. In addition, there didn’t seem to be any serious question for her as to whether Sullivan must *eventually* grant the dismissal, just whether proper procedure required the Circuit Court to let him have his hearing and see whether he grants it himself before ordering him to do so.

    [Not a lawyer, btw. Especially not a US lawyer.]

    Like

    • Judge Henderson took a sharp turn at the end. I believe she fully understands all of the nuances of the law here from her own deliberations. I don’t think she needed anything more from the attorneys; she was extremely well prepared for the hearing.

      The AG should have filed the Writ in the first place. That put an unfair burden on Sidney.
      The Bush judge did say that fashioning a compromise remedy would be difficult. Henderson still may go with the Writ.

      Like

  47. Jan says:

    The left will erect a statue for Sullivan. This is disgusting.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s