August 11th – 2020 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #1300

In an effort to keep the Daily Open Thread a little more open topic we are going to start a new daily thread for “Presidential Politics”. Please use this thread to post anything relating to the Donald Trump Administration and Presidency.

trump-president-3

This thread will refresh daily and appear above the Open Discussion Thread.

President Trump Twitter @POTUS / Vice President Pence Twitter @VP

Kayleigh McEnany Twitter @PressSec

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1,119 Responses to August 11th – 2020 Presidential Politics – Trump Administration Day #1300

  1. CopperTop says:

    Judge Griffith:

    “Purpose of 48A is to examine favoritism toward the defendant as well? Isn’t that what’s going on here???”

    Oh yes. THis man has been denied Brady material by the goverment and boy oh boy that sure does mean he’s been favored…

    Liked by 4 people

    • CopperTop says:

      Sydney unfortunately did not bring up Brady violations towards Flynn in her reply. She probably should have brought that home in her response.

      Liked by 1 person

      • MaineCoon says:

        Believe it was briefed, but it would have been a good hammer to say it now. Unfortunately, many judges hey cut her off repeatedly, which they are not in general doing when the Acting Solicitor General speaks. Seems to be a bias in treatment right there.

        Liked by 2 people

        • OmegaManBlue says:

          It’s a good lesson on what to expect if you ever get into legal trouble. You can’t trust judges and prosecutors to always do right thing by the law. And if you ever get politics in your case for some reason you are even more screwed.

          Liked by 4 people

        • CopperTop says:

          Good Lord it’s been a long while MaineCoon since we’ve replied to each other. Hello…and as usual –U right!

          C U here Friday?! (rhetorical)

          Like

        • Issy says:

          MaineCoon: They really don’t like Sidney because she has brought all the fraudulent practices of the Muller prosecutors to light. An exoneration of Flynn was not supposed to happen and they are doing their part to keep the case going.

          Like

  2. John Wilson says:

    I have a dream. President Trump Pardon’s LTG Flynn, fires Wray, and puts Flynn in charge until a new Director is placed… in January.

    Like

  3. berniekopell says:

    Wall now up for DOJ. Very short opening statement. Srinivasan asks if you take out of the field of vision Suspicious Sullivan’s briefing here, would the separation of powers problem still exist. Asked questions about Fokker. If mandamus request had been filed earlier, should mandamus have been granted because the judge telegraphed what he was going to do? Yes says Wall. This is a key question IMO. Another follow-up question suggesting mandamus could have been entered earlier.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. BobC says:

    Kayleigh had a press briefing yesterday at 1pm EDT.

    Judging by the absence of any comments I guess nobody even knew it was happening. This must be the first time. Hope it’s the last.

    Kinda sad.

    Like

  5. Misha Berra says:

    Question – can the USA citizens make a citizen’s arrest or file a class action lawsuit on Mueller for his intentionally submitting a phake report?

    Liked by 1 person

  6. sync says:

    Liked by 1 person

  7. berniekopell says:

    Henderson corrects her quote about the fish. It was Thoreau discussing circumstantial evidence and the fish in the milk. Henderson focuses on bias and disqualification. Wall says there is now evidence that Suspicious Sullivan is biased.

    Rogers asks about bias. Wall suggests that there is now an appearance of bias. Suspicious Sullivan was not asked to participate by the Court, he did so on his own. By injecting himself into the case he has become a participant. But Wall offers a compromise. If mandamus is denied, the court should reign in Suspicious Sullivan and tell him what he cannot do — “provide guidance” to him.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. CTH Fan says:

    By the posts here about the Flynn hearing one would understand that the Russian/Soviet system is nothing compared to this system of Justice. Meaning, you will get NO justice and no recognition of the Constitutional rights of citizens in the current US Justice system of today.

    Welcome to the new world order system of justice. No justice at all.

    Liked by 7 people

    • CTH Fan says:

      Anything Durham has will have to go through a military court if justice is to be served properly.

      The Flynn case can be used as a overwhelming reason for removing the hearings from the DC circuit entirely.

      Liked by 3 people

      • jeans2nd says:

        Have you noticed recent rulings in Military courts?
        Pres Trump actually had to step in on more than one occasion to render justice.
        Please do not put your trust in the Military brass, which includes the Military courts.
        You will be sorely disappointed. Again.
        All we have is Pres Trump and each other. Which is more than enough.

        Hope is not a battle plan.
        “They’ve got us surrounded, they can’t escape now.”
        Fire at will.

        Liked by 8 people

    • OmegaManBlue says:

      Welcome? I been in this reality for a while now. Judges and prosecutors been screwing over people for a long time.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. burginthorn says:

    Woman in Melbourne Australia choked by police for not wearing a mask.

    Liked by 3 people

    • And they wonder why people have no respect for cops.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Free Speech says:

      The banality of evil. Good Nazi soldiers just doing their jobs.

      Liked by 2 people

    • steph_gray says:

      ICYMI, what is going on in Melbourne is astonishingly totalitarian. Dan Bongino’s podcast covered it a few days ago.

      He made the case that they are actually out-police-stating the Soviet Union and East Germany.

      People are all – EVERYBODY – locked in homes, allowed out only 1 hour a day “for exercise,” wearing masks 24/7, all gatherings of any size forbidden, with only one family member allowed out to buy groceries.

      And those who are caught breaking these insane rules are locked in and rationed food is delivered to them. Probably crawling with maggots.

      Well, no, I made up that last part but this is unbelievable. And yes this is what the enemy here wants for all of us too.

      It’s called totalitarianism for a reason. It simply means, total power, total control, total repression, no exceptions.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Paprika says:

        I have a gardening friend/partner in Melbourne who summed it up this way this past weekend when I called to wish him happy birthday–“Everyday day is dreary, grey, depressing, and lacking of Spring hope and colour during our ‘winter of discontent’. Now on to your query about our weather…..”

        Liked by 1 person

  10. HickTick says:

    I wonder if the President is aware that the IRS is at it again . With holding Tax Refunds for Trump supporters . They are blaming it on covid , well a machine sent my stimulus money to my bank account ,but no tax refund . Have been waiting on seven thousand dollars since February , simple return old married , retired , H&R block filed it . I found out that we are not alone , so much for a summer vacation this year , I guess they hope you get mad and vote for Biden . Yes I notified my Congressman , going on a month ago now . Due to covid you cant even chat with anyone

    Like

    • Brian Baker says:

      Yes, they are very much behind on processing 2019 income tax refunds. Going forward have you considered reducing your federal income tax withholding by about $500 per month, since it appears that you are overpaying based on that info.

      Liked by 2 people

    • 55praises says:

      I have used TurboTax for 4 or 5 years, and refunds from the Fed have come quickly, often within days. I did file in July this year, but if anything the refund came faster.

      Like

    • HickTick,
      Not sure what kind of funny business IRS is up to with you.

      I filed my return in 2nd week of July and received the paper check by mail in 3-4 weeks.

      Like

    • I manually filed my tax return at the end of March and right after that the China Virus thing happened. I got neither my stimulus check or refund for a very long time because they did not process manual returns until they sent out the stimulus checks and my 2018 return I screwed up and forgot to put my bank routing number on it so it had to be mailed to me.

      Finally, after 90% of everyone else got their stimulus check I received mine via US Postal Service only after I went to IRS website and filled out form and put in requested information for 2018 return.

      I still did not receive my refund so I finally called my Senator’s office, which is Tillis, and they said they had a specific person assigned to research this situation since I was not the only one having a problem. What was amazing, is that the person wasn’t in the office but the person answering the phone took down my name and address, etc and said he would mail me a form giving permission to research my situation. Well, I never got the form but in less than a week I got my refund.

      HickTick, have you gone to the IRS website and there should be a place where it says you can find out the status of your refund. First, do that. Then, call your Congressman or Senator (I called my Senator because my congressman was Meadows and I have no Congressman right now) and explain to them the situation. It worked for me.

      PS. My refund was slightly larger than I thought it should be and they didn’t round it off so it included cents..I thought it was quite odd and somewhat humorous.

      Like

    • Issy says:

      HickTick: Yes, Covid is a great excuse for these government sloths not doing their jobs.

      Like

  11. berniekopell says:

    Tatel returns to Srinasivan question about letting hearing play out. Mandamus should not lie until after that process has played out. Wall says no. Tatel now analogizes other situations where Judges are allowed to evaluate motions for pretext. Wall returns to Fokker. Court cannot second guess the executive branch decision to dismiss.

    Garland up now. Tag teams prior question from Tatel – if Court took up rehearing on its own, does it have that power? Wall says yes. Next question. Government has already given its reasons for dismissal. What more does the government have to say? Wall very good here, but says something very interesting – Attorney General may have information that it did not disclose to the Court. Hmm. Garland returns to a theme – we don’t know what he is going to do. He might grant the motion. The government could refuse to let the judge probe beyond what is in the motion. What is the harm? Wall argues hard that harm to separation of powers already exists.

    Liked by 3 people

  12. sunnyflower5 says:

    Is the China Virus bonus bucks double dipped? Does the nursing home and the hospital get China Virus bonus bucks for the same patient?

    Liked by 14 people

    • cjzak says:

      Typical Cuomo m. o. He will manipulate everything he can to come out smelling sweet and clean and the victim of Pres. Trump. This investigation is a sham that has already been decided. In Cuomo’s favor. Bet on it.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Redhotrugmama says:

    Consider our country lucky that Garland did not make it onto SCOTUS

    Liked by 12 people

  14. jay says:

    Why do these judges refuse to take Sullivan at his word??

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Liberty Forge says:

    Transgender-ism.

    https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/jenna-ellis-fires-back-she-faces-criticism-calling-transgender-pa-health-secretary

    Jenna Ellis — stand your ground.

    This is actually a good conversation to have.

    For those who are unaware, Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Health, Dr. Rachel Levine, was named Richard at birth.

    Richard is now making all the health decisions for Pennsylvanians during this “crisis”.

    Is someone who believes they are something other that what they actually are mentally stable?

    Hypothetically, if a person — who believes themselves to be a bird — and who has wings surgically attached to their upper back — does that make them a bird?

    Liked by 5 people

    • TJ says:

      “It’s a con job.” – PT

      “Free CovidCare, including gender REA$$IGNMENT and a life long PRE$CRIPTION for HORMONE$!”

      Transocialism works, until you run out of other people’s money.

      Like

    • goddessoftheclassroom says:

      I despise Gov. Wolf with every fiber of my being. He just yesterday “recommended” that PA schools start online.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. CopperTop says:

    Judge Griffith at again. Asking if Judges can challenge Goverment 48A in a hearing to ask if they are dismissing due to favortism.

    No the briefs tell him that it is about Brady.

    Wall did a better job of making that clear.

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Mortimer says:

    Notice that Garland (and maybe one other) has played coy with the idea of how this hearing came about.

    Garland said, “Just assume for purposes of my question that the court decided to have this hearing on it’s own”. I don’t know the spelling but it’s called sui ponte or something like that.

    Liked by 3 people

    • berniekopell says:

      sua sponte – Latin for on its own.

      Liked by 1 person

    • SJM says:

      Sua sponte

      From Wikipedia,

      In law, sua sponte (Latin: “of his, her, its or their own accord”) or suo motu (“on its own motion”)[1] describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party. The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties. The form nostra sponte (“of our own accord”) is sometimes used by the court itself, when the action is taken by a multi-member court, such as an appellate court, rather than by a single judge (third parties describing such actions would still refer to them as being taken by the court as a whole and therefore as ‘sua sponte’). While usually applied to actions of a court, the term may reasonably be applied to actions by government agencies and individuals acting in official capacity.

      One situation in which a party might encourage a judge to move sua sponte occurs when that party is preserving a special appearance (usually to challenge jurisdiction), and therefore cannot make motions on its own behalf without making a general appearance. Common reasons for an action taken sua sponte are when the judge determines that the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction or that the case should be moved to another judge because of a conflict of interest, even if all parties disagree….MORE:

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

      Like

    • cjzak says:

      Why would the court decide to have this hearing on their own? Do they have the right to step in whenever they feel like a case isn’t going the way they want it to?

      It makes no sense to me at all how a case that was dismissed by the prosecuting party is not over with. In fact, it is continuing in another court because the presiding judge put himself in the middle of the case he was supposed to be impartially judging and the judges in the higher court also decided to put themselves into the case which should have been dismissed???? I am no legal expert or even a legal novice, so I know I probably shouldn’t comment, but I do read about legal cases we have all read about. This one seems absolutely out of bounds and completely political in nature and threatening to the separation of powers of the federal govt. Is it?

      I’m glad I never wanted to be a lawyer because there is no logic or common sense in the law at all it seems. Travesty of justice here, imo, but what do I know.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Eric C. says:

      “Michael-FLynn-perjury-case”?

      Liked by 1 person

    • MaineCoon says:

      FTA: Aug. 11 (UPI) — A Justice Department attorney told a federal appeals court Tuesday that Attorney General William Barr may have had secret information that led him to request that charges against former national security adviser Michael Flynn be dropped.

      Only it’s not secret.

      #WE KNOW

      Like

  18. berniekopell says:

    Griffith asks again what the “leave of court” requirement under Rule 48(a) contemplates? Wall responds well – there is no substantive role of the court in an unopposed motion. Griffith persists – What if the judge believes the dismissal is politically motivated? Wall hammers back – returns to Fokker. That is not the role of the judge. Griffith asks what type of hearing would be appropriate for Suspicious Sullivan? Wall says, clearly, on these facts a hearing is not appropriate.

    Millet also asks about “leave of court” requirement. Could Suspicious Sullivan ask: “What is the real reason for your dismissal?” Wall says no. Could the judge sanction the attorney after the motion is granted. Wall says yes. No one is sure. Another procedural nitpick – why didn’t the DOJ object to the amicus appointment or file a motion or reconsideration. Wall explains why. Suspicious Sullivan had already made a considered sua sponte decision to appoint amicus. Then asks if there is any decision where recusal is mandated when not first raised first with the trial court.

    Liked by 2 people

    • cheering4america says:

      It’s ironic they worry about a Dismissal that is politically motivated but not a Prosecution – such as this – that is politically motivated.

      Liked by 6 people

    • SJM says:

      Rule 48. Dismissal

      (a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.

      (b) By the Court. The court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint if unnecessary delay occurs in:

      (1) presenting a charge to a grand jury;

      (2) filing an information against a defendant; or

      (3) bringing a defendant to trial.

      MORE:
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_48

      Liked by 1 person

    • Cam Heck says:

      Wall missed a golden opportunity to reply to Griffiths ” Speaking of political motivation, what if the JUDGE is politically motivated? I’d like to call @johnheretohelp to provide testimony to that effect”

      Liked by 1 person

  19. I have zero hope that this FU court is going to do the right thing for General Flynn.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Justin Green says:

      It’s not clear to me what this court will do – refer it back to Sullivan with orders, or have the case re-assigned. I don’t think this court will actually drop the case.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Blind no Longer says:

      I have none either Seneca!!! It seems the courts in this country have decided they can overrule any evidence they decide their ideological views don’t agree with. I believe it was Merrick or Prictard who said regardless of the facts…what if blah, blah, blah….
      I have NO faith General Flynn can receive justice in this country.

      We don’t care about facts!!! If a guy charged with murder, is found not to be guilty of the charge after another person confesses he did it and even provides the court with the murder weapon he used…the court could say I don’t care…I’m charging you anyway.

      Same thing is happening here.

      Liked by 3 people

  20. parleyvous says:

    Looks like Kamala Out as VP. Odds for Susan Rice to block prosecutions and deep state cover up… went up.

    Like

    • Eric C. says:

      I just saw the speaking schedule, I was going to look at other schedules to confirm the Wed VP pick wouldn’t again speak Thurs to into their running mate. Looks like maybe Karen Bass, Susan Rice, or the Not-governor of GA for VP – I’m with ya that i’d assume “by the book” Susan in order to protect, the last hail mary pass, good luck O!!!!!

      What a line-up Thursday is, I bet they get 10’s, if not 100’s of viewers

      Liked by 2 people

      • parleyvous says:

        Well proven wrong. She was said to have unfollowed Biden just before this. FWIW been saying for long time she was their real candidate before BIden. Wonder if and when he steps down for her.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Issy says:

          parleyvous: Yes, Obama got who he wanted after all. The people wouldn’t support her in the primaries, so poor ole Joe was put up so she could slide in as VP. How does President Harris sound to you?

          Like

  21. Misha Berra says:

    Does this Antifa group have a group of violinists/fiddlers? Can they come and play or maybe
    post some loudspeakers on the tops of bldgs playing full blast. Since Fox seems to be
    the only station showing the “peaceful” anarchists – while “Rome is burning”
    has anyone thought to post huge photos of BIDEN, PELOSI, NADLER, on the
    storefront windows – doubt that will stop them – but will it wake up the chosen 3
    monkeys – hear no, see no and speak no, and, pray tell – can’t wait for a 4th –
    isn’t that the monkey covering his/her privates?
    I just read DC will be the next targeted city. Suggestions on songs –
    chorus playing – OOPS – (they) DID IT AGAIN! for every time they break into a store or
    loot burn or shoot and kill –

    Liked by 1 person

    • Madglobal says:

      The judges are unimpressive and are getting their butts kicked. They will be hard pressed to allow Sullivan’s unconstitutional charade any longer. Look for a reassignment and ruling that allows for delay until Nov 5th. Spit.

      Like

  22. Linda K. says:

    https://nypost.com/2020/08/11/man-shot-by-secret-service-near-white-house-ran-at-officer/

    This is all I’ve seen on shooting near White House yesterday.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. berniekopell says:

    Pillard now shows her cards again. Long speech on how Suspicious Sullivan is just doing the right thing. Implies the judge was actually helping Flynn by delaying his sentencing. Wall is reading the tea leaves now. Looking for a mandamus decision with conditions reigning in any future hearing. Pilllard: “What is the government worried about at this hearing?” Implies ulterior motive. Wall again returns to Fokker – judge cannot superintend the prosecutor’s decision. Cheney case clear that the harms to the government have already occurred. Shouldn’t the court be entitiled to hear the strongest arguments, even if from an amicus? No says Wall. Fokker says there is no substantial role for the judge in an unopposed motion to dismiss. Wall hammers back hard here. Suspicious Sullivan knows the law here. He is not confused. He is going well beyond what is permissible.

    Liked by 5 people

  24. berniekopell says:

    Blowhard Wilkins goes back to his hypothetical. Wall responds very well here. Wilkins now changes hypothetical – what if Attorney General is videoed taking cash to dismiss the case? Wall fires back. The remedy for punishing corruption is not in Rule 48. There are other remedies for that conduct. Wall returns to Fokker – there is no room for any substantial role by a judge in the dismissal decision. Period.

    Liked by 5 people

    • CopperTop says:

      PS: Bernie you and I need to be on the SCOTUS via stop on this panel first/sarc

      Time for outsider Judges! (aka …in my case wholly unqualified but I sure can read and listen to this stuff all day long)

      Like

      • Issy says:

        CopperTop: Apparently knowing the law is not a prerequisite for being on the D.C. Appellant Court. You can just make up ridiculous hypotheticals and you’re good to go.

        Like

    • Cam Heck says:

      WHAT? Alleging AG has taken money?!?! Lord I wish Sidney had entered johnheretohelp’s testimony on Sullivan’s corruption into the record here: (For those not familiar, ” John” is a witness for Sharyl Attkisson against Rod Rosenstein)

      Like

  25. Peoria Jones says:

    POTUS Trump is expected to be on the Hugh Hewitt radio program within the next half-hour.

    (11:30 – noon, Eastern Time)

    Liked by 1 person

  26. bessie2003 says:

    Am listening to the court on the Gen. Flynn mandamus issue, and the use of a hypothetical case, where supposedly some Nuns have filmed a prosecutor taking a bribe to drop a case, is morphing into now they are hypothetically saying the Attorney General has taken a bribe to drop a case –

    this hypothetical sure seems like these judges are keying up talking points for msm/press can use to insinuate that the Attorney General took a bribe to drop the Gen. Flynn case when this district court eventually gets around to ruling the case must be dismissed, i.e. they are creating mud for when the inevitable happens and any collateral damage done to the defendant, Gen. Flynn, his future livelihood or reputation be damned.

    Our Justice system needs a good looking at too!

    Liked by 1 person

  27. jeans2nd says:

    Raheem Kassam is reporting the rumor that Kamala Harris is Beijing Biden’s pick for VP.
    Note – this is a rumor Kassam has not yet confirmed.
    But really, who cares? Beijing Biden himself said “They” all think and act alike, so does it really matter?

    Liked by 2 people

  28. berniekopell says:

    Rao wonders why the DOJ did not file its own mandamus petition. Wall responds this is form over substance. There are lots of cases where the appellate court considers arguments made by a party in the case even though that party was not the one initiating the relief.

    Wall hammers home Cheney/Fokker cases. Harm to government is apparent. wall offers another olive branch for a compromise decision. Send it back to Suspicious Sullivan but clip his wings on scope of any inquiry.

    Like

  29. sunnyflower5 says:

    Great. Make sure therapeutics are available as well. Hydroxychloroquine should be made OTC.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Free Speech says:

      POTUS has given up fighting that battle. He’s being advised poorly. Now all he wants to talk about is vaccine and remdesivir. Great. Help Soros and Gates get their way. It’s infuriating.

      Liked by 1 person

      • steph_gray says:

        I trust him to make a judgment in spite of any weak advice – he always has and always will.

        This one is probably about timing. Too many voters have been brainwashed that a vaccine is a magic pill that will allow them to drop fear and leave their homes. We all know perfectly well it isn’t, that vaccines have at best a 40% success rate, but at this moment PDJT seems content to let that process play out. He must get the lockdowns – and worse, the _voluntary_ lockdowners – out of their imaginary “safe spaces” to rescue the economy.

        And because he doesn’t mention the therapeutics every single time doesn’t mean he doesn’t still highlight them, and often.

        Liked by 1 person

      • KBR says:

        What enabled the closing of borders/flights/caravans?

        Are you aware of the globalist plans for the US? How has this put a stop to that plan?
        Is the stop temporary, just until COVID19 goes away…or until Nov 3?

        What would have happened if the caravans & flights had not been shut down?

        Like

        • Free Speech says:

          My comments have nothing to do with closing the borders. That was a great job and great idea. I’m talking about the way he’s running away from HCQ. He has totally backed off it, and just uses the term ‘treatments’ now. I haven’t heard him speak it specificalIy the last couple of pressers, but lord have mercy, REMDESIVIR has to get a plug every time.

          I don’t know, but I hope this is not a devil’s bargain to get rid of mail in voting. Whereas, someone has convinced him that a vaccine will make mail in voting obsolete. But that would only work if a vaccine were compulsory. You’re not going to force me to let you stick my kid 4 or 5 times, which is what Gates wants. The more shots, the more poison they can pump in you under the guise of ‘immune stimulators’.

          Like

          • cantcforest says:

            I can’t figure out why PDJT owned HCQ. Moments after he mentioned it, I thought “That’s what Walter Reed recommends” and then it became my treatment of choice. Why couldn’t he say that?
            I’ll spare you my rant about how middle schoolers could have done a better job modeling and projecting. They might even have examined the cruise ship data.

            Like

      • TJ says:

        Then why is monopolist Gates still fighting that battle?

        Gates says testing is bad. PT says testing is good.

        https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/08/09/bill-gates-trumps-pandemic-response-mind-blowing-no-other-country-has-this-testing-insanity/

        Like

        • Free Speech says:

          That interview just sounded like Gates talking out of his butt trying to run POTUS down about EVERYTHING. He’s the enemy. He’s not going to stop doing that.

          Like

      • MaineCoon says:

        It appears it’ll be the only way we will ever get out of COVID jail. I ain’t taking it. I want Fauci & Gates to take it first with a 2-3 year timeframe for side effects to kick in.

        Liked by 1 person

  30. Eric C. says:

    That’s how you end there stupid hypotheticals, no – return to point of decisional law, no -return to point of decisional law, no – return to point of decisional law – just keep pound it home

    Will it be available somewhere? I’d like to start listening from begining

    Liked by 2 people

  31. L4grasshopper says:

    First, many thanks to berniekopell and others for providing a running summary of the proceeding.

    Second, my non legal experience at this type of thing is coming to tne conclusion that these judges literally don’t care for application of clear legal statutes and decisions and rules, but are mostly concerned with protecting THEIR ability to “make it up” when they need to. Hence the clear animosity toward the mandamus process, and the constant usage in argument with irrelevant hypotheticals. In particular— they seem very upset that anyone would challenge Sullivan for doing whatever the F he wants too in a proceeding. These “judges” want to rule as kings, not arbiters.

    Liked by 5 people

  32. jeans2nd says:

    Confirmed – Beijing Biden is on pins and needles waiting to find out who is Biden’s pick.

    Seriously – the VP’s comms team has been announced. All are Obama alum, one was recently voice of the Sacramento basketball team.

    Liked by 3 people

  33. Brant says:

    In that link to speakers, Harris was on Tbursday, and the “VP Nom” on wed is not named. So Rice?

    Like

  34. MaineCoon says:

    My assessment of the Flynn hearings, en banc:

    As a whole, in general, the judges are treating the Acting Solicitor General, Jeffery Wall, with far greater deference than Attorney Sidney Powell, BECAUSE on the whole most all of the justices LISTEN to Wall’s answers to his questions, in their entirety, for the most part with very little interruption he is allowed to finish his answers. Sidney Powell, on the whole, in an overall assessment, was cut off and repeated NOT ALLOWED to be given the same courtesy.

    I realize it is an acceptable practice for judges to cut off attorneys, BUT in this hearing, it has happened to such a degree w/Powell and it HAS NOT happened in any way near the same degree w/Wall that in my humble opinion this Court, in general, is overall adverse to Powell. Just my opinion.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Same reason democrats wouldn’t let AG Barr speak last week .. . the truth must be suppressed

      Liked by 1 person

    • CopperTop says:

      S G Wall is getting professional courtesy by being a member of the third branch. It’s protocol more than disfavor. They treat all the defense attys the same way generally.

      Powell was just obviously reading their questions to understand that the judges are leaning towards requiring a hearing with instructions. Powell sees as defense atty THAT ruling is VERY bad for the defense community – 48A should never be challenge and if the judge isn’t disciplined for allowing an amicus, it’s bad–that’s what I hear in her voice.

      Liked by 2 people

      • MaineCoon says:

        Good explanation of the 3rd branch protocol and very true; yet, I believe Sidney got the treatment she got in spite of the 3rd-branch protocol. That Court despises her for what she has exposed against Sullivan.

        Lawyers circle the wagon when another attorney takes a hit. It’s a reflective reaction.

        Judges REALLY protect their own. The fact that judicial impartiality is in the mix really puts the fur up on their backs. They are pissed at Sidney for even making this an issue, including on all her recent tv interviews. They can’t help but feel the light shining on them too. They are defending themselves here!

        This is PERSONAL to these judges and imho they are going to make any legal issue they can make to save Sullivan’s arse, b/c in essense it’s to save face for themselves. I think they will somehow creatively “justify” what Sullivan’s done. Judges aren’t going to let the law get in the way of saving Sullivan’s face, which is only a reflection of some judges’ faces sitting on this bench.

        LAWYERS PROTECT LAWYERS. JUDGES…WELL, WE’LL SEE THE EXTENT THEY WILL GO TO…..

        (P.S. I don’t get reply notifications b/c I don’t have a WP account, but I’ll be looking for all your comments on all this. Enjoy reading your cmts.)

        Liked by 1 person

    • Nigella says:

      Looking at the makeup of this Court I will assume that they will rule against Flynn… Another appeal and another delay… Nothing political about this at all.. I assume I don’t need a sarc tag

      Liked by 2 people

  35. Mortimer says:

    Flynn has won the game, but the losing side (Dims + the Refs) paid the chief referee to refuse to signal that the game has ended.

    He’s being allowed to delay the Super Bowl just by refusing to blow the game ending whistle in the playoffs.

    Liked by 2 people

  36. bessie2003 says:

    Looking forward to these judges questions to Sullivan’s lawyer. If they are as hard on that lawyer as they are on Gen. Flynn’s lawyer and the Justice Dept.’s lawyer, then perhaps it’s not too far to assume some actual justice will occur?

    Like

  37. berniekopell says:

    Henderson asks about possible contempt/perjury. Wall says withdrawal of a guilty plea cannot be perjury. It may be contempt. Wall very good here. Wall politely suggests that Suspicious Sullivan is way out of bounds with perjury and way out in left field on contempt.

    Tatel up again. Asks for the DOJ’s best case on why there is no discretion on the Rule 48 motion. Tatel suggest he is on the fence and can be persuaded. Wall returns to Fokker. There is nothing left for the Court to do.

    Garland up now. Trying to figure out how we draw a line on a separation of powers cases leading to mandamus without opening up the floodgates of mandamus becoming routine. Offers hypothetical about separation of powers between Congress appropriations and the executive decides “I am going the spend the money anyway.” Why is the DOJ going to a hearing more remediable (by mandamus) than Congress being harmed by inappropriate spending? Aren’t you asking us to make a decision for a judge that has not yet been made? Wall returns to the facts here. Much narrower issue and much clearer case law here, says Wall.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cheering4america says:

      So if anyone just woke up from a 30 year nap and wondered whether the Courts have been ridiculously politicized, Garland just confirmed that they are.

      Liked by 1 person

  38. Kristin DeBacco says:

    Why can’t the court of appeals not deal with what they have in front of them? Why all these hypotheticals??
    A case of “they are not listening to the core of the problem”.
    It’s tough 7-3 against you.
    Pretzels being baked to come to a hypothetical….

    Liked by 5 people

  39. Talkofthetown says:

    Just looked at Lindsey Graham’s twitter. Sure be nice to see 10 thousand posts to his twitter every time he posts. Hit him up with Sundance’s article.

    Also calling Lindsey’s office. 1 202 224 5972

    https://t.co/yrAFC9tfTp?amp=1

    Same with Hannity make them not be able to see it.

    Like

  40. Peoria Jones says:

    Wow! POTUS just said (on Hugh Hewitt radio interview) that “they” haven’t yet said he was a specific target of unmasking – BUT – that the conspiracy went waaaaay further and deeper than anyone knew.

    He mentions Susan Rice being Biden’s VP pick as a cover-up. He says 0bama and Byden knew it all.

    President Trump knows, and I get the feeling that he believes this “crime of the century” will come out.

    Liked by 6 people

  41. MaineCoon says:

    FTA: The Obama-era national security adviser [Sara Rice] and her millionaire TV producer husband Ian Cameron donated $24,000 to the Democratic nominee’s campaign in the month of June alone, the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday.

    The sum is a huge boost to the modest $5,800 the couple had previously donated to the campaign over the course of Biden’s entire White House run.

    https://nypost.com/2020/08/10/susan-rice-and-husband-made-large-donation-to-biden-campaign/

    Like

  42. berniekopell says:

    Millet tries to distinguish the Cheney case. How are you harmed by just showing up to a hearing and refusing to answer any questions that you think are out of bounds. Can’t you just refuse to answer then appeal? Wall returns to Fokker. Suspicious Sullivan’s inquiry is out of bounds in this Circuit. Now another hypothetical. Government says multiple times it turned over all Brady evidence. Cash briefcase is handed to prosecutor on the day of trial and the judge sees it. Prosecutor then moves to dismiss. Judge must dismiss, right? Wall says yes. Millet points to “mockery of justice” text from Fokker, which she argues is an exception. Millet says court has to “protect the integrity of the court” if it witnesses a bribe and refuse to dismiss (or at least inquire about it). Wall says there are other mechanisms to deal with a prosecutor taking a bribe – judge can refer that person for prosecution.

    Liked by 3 people

  43. jay says:

    Millet… rule 43 ….rule 43 No. Its rule 48a
    What an idiot.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. Blind no Longer says:

    This whole Flynn hearing is hostile beyond belief!! Hypotheticals, regardless of the facts…it’s like an exercise between competing college professors on who knows the law best.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with the facts that a man who served his country faithfully, was railroaded and destroyed by the government he served!!

    Disgusting!!

    Liked by 2 people

  45. Mortimer says:

    Entire hearing is about application of Rule 48a.

    This judge now says, “What if there was no Rule 48a?”

    “Should we find the defendant guilty of murder?”
    “What if there was no one killed?”

    Liked by 1 person

    • SJM says:

      Rule 48. Dismissal

      (a) By the Government. The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.

      (b) By the Court. The court may dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint if unnecessary delay occurs in:

      (1) presenting a charge to a grand jury;

      (2) filing an information against a defendant; or

      (3) bringing a defendant to trial.

      MORE:
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_48

      Like

  46. Patriot1783 says:

    Meanwhile here in CT it’s Primary Day.
    Would love to know how did this CA Democrat mutt get enough signatures on the ballot against President Trump? Something stinks.
    CT Treepers if you haven’t already, go out and vote.

    https://www.fox61.com/mobile/article/news/politics/elections/rocky-de-la-fuente-connecticut-primary-presidential-gop-republican/520-ec3fb22c-b627-4877-acdd-f6f1b2cbab09

    Liked by 1 person

  47. berniekopell says:

    Rao asks about what if there was no Rule 48? Could government move to dismiss? Would judge have to accept the dismissal? “Yes” says Wall, especially if the defendant agrees. Judge’s role very limited. Several judges appear to be struggling with the “role” of the Court in a Rule 48 motion to dismiss. Rao says she is trying to find balance between executive authority (to dismiss) and judicial authority (to supervise). Wall throws out compromise solution again, send it back with instructions to narrow any inquiry into the government’s motives.

    Like

  48. Sporty says:

    Hypothetical seems to be today’s talking points. Anyone think this isn’t coordinated?

    Liked by 1 person

  49. Todd says:

    Looks like Biden May pick Rice.. Wow how insulting to the others. Clearly a pick to cover up for the Obama administration! How obvious.😆😆 she has a White husband and child how’s that gonna play. And her sons a Trimp supporter 😁😁 boring pick if it’s her!

    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