LIVE
United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Live Stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFFhqHW9_wE
Thanks for thread!
I don’t expect to be surprised by the outcome.
It will be sent to another judge
the hearing is corruptly going
with the blackrobes supporing seditious
King Sullivan.
it was admitted that there was a Motion to
Dismiss AND exculpatory Evidence,
but sedition is being supported at THIS MOMENT.
The discussion about disqualifying Sullivan is another delay tactic. The Sullivan review proceedings gain another 6 weeks of delay.
The DC Appeals Court is 7 to 4 Democrats to Republicans. The full court should have refused to hear Sullivan’s motion but they vacated the Writ of Mandamus and now they want to use legal procedures and court calendars to chew the fat regarding Sullivan.
The DC Court of Appeals is corrupt. If Barr had a SCOTUS without John Roberts, he could appeal to transfer jurisdiction out of DC and into another federal court where a federal judge could hear from Barr and Flynn and dismiss the case in under an hour.
POTUS could file a complaint with SCOTUS that the DC courts have shown bad faith. Barr could follow with a motion to put the DC court system in receivership with special masters to oversee and review practices. Meanwhile, Barr could cite bad faith and transfer jurisdiction of all pending cases in DC out of DC.
In the meantime, don’t be fooled by the focus on Sullivan. They are playing you. It’s all about delay.
from J. Gardland’s question:
it is revealed that AS USUAL
the corrupt court DID NOT LIST the filings/Decisions
on the “official” court docket.
Isn’t it fascinating to see the DC gangster elite trying their damndest to bury one guy on a minor, almost non-existent charge while all across the country, prosecutors and judges are dismissing violent felony charges by the thousands without even so much as an arraignment hearing?
One man that they are on a crusade to smear as a warning to all who might cross them: we don’t care what you think. WE are the government, YOU can do nothing, if you elect someone who tries we will fabricate, frame and imprison him and his allies.
This is what my ancestors shot British troops for? To create a gigantic police state filled with deranged madmen who are worse then any English court follower?
Down with all of them.
Wilkins is an asshole.
Garland should never see the Supreme Court.
Way too many questions about “leave of court”. Depending on the circumstances, it can actually mean “must” such as in this case.
GREAT Twitter feed with play by play now
https://twitter.com/McAdooGordon
Leslie McAdoo Gordon
@McAdooGordon
·
May 29
It is my privilege to be the counsel for a group of distinguished amici curiae in General Flynn’s case...
If anyone sees a transcript for this after it’s over, I’d appreciate a ping to it.
A lady (not sure who) asked hypothetical —
what if government receives DNA evidence that clears someone and prosecution decides to drop the case - is it appropriate to take 7 weeks to decide whether to drop case?
Answer — the person representing Sullivan says yes and is arguing that its OK and depends on circumstances.
LOL
What I’m hearing is judges searching and reaching for reasons to continue this farce without any justification. They can do this, but as they are testifying, they can only deny mandamus if they fail (refuse) to provide justification.
As long as Trump wins in November there is only one ultimate outcome. Flynn will be exonerated. This process is an attempt to keep Trump from winning. If Trump does not win, then he will pardon Flynn before leaving office. So Flynn will walk either way.
The bottom legal line here is that there was and is no pending case for Flynn to obstruct. So no obstruction charge should legally be able to prevail or even continue.
First a comment. Beth Wilkinson stated that Sullivan would accept whatever ruling was made by the en banc court. Why is that? If Sullivan is convinced that the integrity of the District Court is at risk, why would he accept the ruling of an en banc panel when he refused to accept the ruling of a three judge panel? If an important legal principle is at stake why would Sullivan not ask for the Supreme Court to override a denial by the en banc court?
Second, a question. At the end of the hearing, Sydney Powell asks the court to deny Sullivan's petition for re-hearing and issue the mandate themselves.
I thought this was the re-hearing. Does this mean that the en banc panel might just grant a re-hearing and then schedule a future hearing to hear the merits? This is confusing to me. Anybody know the answer?
YouTube yanked it, not sure why.