Full Audio – Oral Arguments in U.S. DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Petition For Writ of Mandamus…

Today the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit held a full panel hearing to decide the outcome of the unopposed DOJ and defense motion to drop the case against Michael Flynn.

Panel Judges include Judge Srinivasan, Judge Henderson, Judge Rogers, Judge Tatel, Judge Garland, Judge Griffith, Judge Millett, Judge Pillard, Judge Wilkins and Judge Rao.

The arguments spanned approximately four hours. Margot Cleveland has a solid breakdown of the arguments – SEE HEREFull audio below:

This entry was posted in Activist Judges, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, Election 2016, Election 2020, FBI, media bias, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

220 Responses to Full Audio – Oral Arguments in U.S. DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Petition For Writ of Mandamus…

  1. berniekopell says:

    I’ll post a prediction when I get a chance on the daily thread. The hearing yesterday was a huge time suck so I am in catch up mode. The bottom line is that even if mandamus is not granted, the full DC Circuit is going to tell Suspicious Sullivan to fold up the circus tent and grant the motion to dismiss. IMO right now there are several judges on the fence (Tatel, Garland, Millet) on whether mandamus is appropriate and one or more could go either way.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Dana Christianson says:

    I Didn’t Know “Carlton Bank’s” From Fresh Prince Of Bel-Air Was A Judge Now. I Really Enjoyed His New “Hypothetical” About The Nun’s With The Bag Of Cash. Last Time I Think He Was Muttering Something About An “Unarmed” Black-Man.. LOL..

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Kat Ford says:

    Seems like the appellate court realized that Judge Sullivan made himself a party to the lawsuit thus he should be disqualified from hearing “his own case”. Sullivan acted outside the Rules. IMO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE by judge acting beyond the power and authority given to him by law.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. atomichillbilly says:

    It’s become blatantly obvious that the swamp has forsaken their obligations to the constitution in favor of some vague totalitarian ideas.

    Perhaps Barr is even dealing with a wokester mutiny within the ranks?
    Could that be the reason for a lack of prosecutions?

    It’s time to consider that an people’s “intervention” is in order…

    Toss those scallywags out of our buildings and replace them.
    They seem incapable of policing themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Super elite covfefe999 loves her President! says:

      Why pick on Barr? It’s Barr who shut Mueller down. It’s Barr who dropped the Flynn case. You want indictments? There’s a lot of work that needs to be done in order to secure them. Be patient.

      Like

  5. allin4freedom says:

    Perhaps they’d get the hint if someone loaded up a dump truck with roofing tar and some big bags of feathers and dumped the load in front of the courthouse.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. George Quest says:

    I listened to 2.5hrs of this legal pablum, which was a complete waste. For Judges to continually bring up hypothetical questions was a complete waste of time. As Joe Friday of Dragnet used to say “Just the facts ma’am”. This hearing seemed to avoid the obvious facts in the case which I have followed for four years. I hope Gen. Flynn sues the pants off the Government. I only wish he could sue all the Judges and the prosecution attorneys involved. Plus of course the others should include: McCabe, Comey, Brennan, Strzok & Page to name a few. This is a total miscarriage of justice. Judges and lawyers integrity have reached the level below used car sales people.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Super elite covfefe999 loves her President! says:

      It’s not a waste to listen to these awful judges. I agree that their hypotheticals are a waste. But you know, these judges knew they would be excerpted for propaganda media reports, and the hypotheticals were carefully crafted to imply that Flynn and the DOJ are corrupt.

      We voters have to do better. We vote these judges into their positions. I’ll bet most people who vote don’t even know anything about the judges they vote for. We are ultimately responsible for this mess.

      Like

  7. Super elite covfefe999 loves her President! says:

    Thank you Sidney Powell for encouraging people (during your appearance on Lou Dobbs’ show) to listen to the arguments!I have listened to the first 2 hours and will finish tomorrow evening. It’s fascinating and infuriating. Both you and Jeffrey Wall were brilliant. The bias of some of the judges is atrocious.

    Thank you Sundance for posting the recording.

    Like

  8. Super elite covfefe999 loves her President! says:

    IF you cannot listen to the entire recording, at least listen to a few minutes of it starting at 1:50:00. The obnoxious appeals court judge (who sounds like one of the SNL Californians) repeats the false claim that Judge Sullivan “just wants to understand” the DOJ’s reasons for dropping the case. US Solicitor General Wall proves her wrong and shuts her down. The b failed to read the case provided to her and she missed a very important detail.

    Like

  9. Liberty ONE says:

    EVERYONE should remember, to be blunt,… when “judges” take a dump they pull down their underwear just like you and me. They are NO better than us. They just have POWER, but many have NO common sense nor morals. Just listen to these “hypothetical” IDIOTS!

    Like

  10. Super elite covfefe999 loves her President! says:

    I think this is the crux of the case: Judge Sullivan and his backers are trying to push the narrative that he just wants to understand what’s going on, that’s why he appointed the Amicus, he’s just being a good judge right? Judge Pillard takes Sullivan’s side (she’s probably a brainwashed Demtard.) She thinks Sullivan should be able to hold hearings and do whatever else to determine why the Government wants to drop the case against Flynn. So that he can understand, you know.

    Start listening at 1:49:40. Listen to Wall wipe the floor with this dumb judge who apparently didn’t do her homework. Sullivan’s team committed an unforced error, Wall mentions it, and it reveals Sullivan’s true motive.

    — (my transcript, might have a few small errors) —

    Wall: We even said that a District Court does have the power to appoint Amici in criminal cases generally, the problem with the appointment here is that like everything else the Court is doing it is designed to entrench on Executive power. So if the Court tomorrow said “look I’m not sure whether I’m going to approve this DPA, I think maybe it’s too lenient on the corporate defendants, I had the best arguments from both sides about whether I should approve this or whether it’s too lenient, and so I’m going to appoint an Amicus”. I think Fokker squarely forecloses that, it says there’s no substantial role for the Courts. And whatever the District Court [interrupted]

    Pillard: He didn’t say that though. He says that “I want to understand” […] If he just wants to understand what the Government’s position is and he thinks the adversary system is the way to get there, and he’s going to appoint the Devil’s advocate on one side and have the Government argue strongly on the other, you don’t have any objection to that.

    Wall: Judge Pillard, just to be clear, that’s not what this is. The District Court believes [interrupted]

    Pillard: I understand the facts but we have a difference of opinion on that, but we’ve been asked to mandamus so we have to draw the line

    Wall: That’s right, but the judicial court told you in it’s brief, if you look at the re-hearing petition pages 14 to 16 and footnote 3, it says it wants to see whether the public interest is served and what it says is “legitimate prosecutorial interests”. This is not a lack of understanding on the part of the District Court, the briefs of the District Court are very good. The District Court fully understands the United States’ position. What it wants to inquire into is whether that position is, in it’s view, “legitimate”. And that is exactly what articles 2 and 3 do not allow.

    Pillard: Thank you

    Like

    • Super elite covfefe999 loves her President! says:

      I finally figured out one of the things Wall says, it’s near the top:

      We haven’t said that a District Court doesn’t have the power to appoint Amici

      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