Posted on 05/21/2020 2:06:17 PM PDT by gwjack
For those who can comprehend.
“””Note that in this story there is not one single word favorable to President Trump, Powell or Flynn. Only snide comments.”””
It’s only controversial to the perpetrators. Over half this country thinks otherwise.
Thanks for the duck.
This judge is willing to kamikaze his reputation at the end of his career. He knows he will lose.
He must somehow think it is worth it.
My guess is that the democrats have something on the judge. That is how the deep state controls everyone. They ordered him to fall on his sword or else.
You can't answer the defendant's question via the Writ of Mandamus because there is no plaintiff nor is there a charge; therefore, there is NO CASE.
Now go get your shine box.
Judges hate being reversed on appeal.
Sullivan is waiting for the check to clear, before ruling.
What is NEM?
>> CBNC:The dismissal request has been highly controversial.
CNBC is Comcast. Comcast is a malicious telecom operation.
She should have Demanded Sanctions for the Judge also.
Check the Twitter feeds of Kevin Breuninger and Dan Mangan, and I can guarantee you that they’re retweeting Resistance bullsqueeze all day long.
A wall would be quicker...
Yes like hold the judge in contempt.
United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016) is the controlling case in the DC circuit. The DC COA held: “[T]he `leave of court’ authority gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor's Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss charges based on a disagreement with the prosecution's exercise of charging authority.”
The case further held:
The Constitution allocates primacy in criminal charging decisions to the Executive Branch. The Executive's charging authority embraces decisions about whether to initiate charges, whom to prosecute, which charges to bring, and whether to dismiss charges once brought. It has long been settled that the Judiciary generally lacks authority to second-guess those Executive determinations, much less to impose its own charging preferences.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3847274/posts?page=32#32
Bias. I would call it snide. Many people have commented favorably, including Dershowitz and Turley, but the author of this article chooses to go with unnamed "former prosecutors." Maybe the ones who have had to leave?
What would the purpose of that be? We don’t have a Star Chamber. The Senate can’t convene a Grand Jury and they cannot prosecute anybody.
Easy question. It puts the Deep State coupists on notice that the GOP has Trump’s flanks and they can expect public proctological exams should they join The Resistance (TM).
Instead the Deep State coupists have seen the GOP publicly signal for 3 years that there will be no oversight and they are free to attack POTUS and assault his supporters under color of law at their leisure.
I have no doubt POTUS would never have been impeached had the GOP Senate even minimially supported him while the coupists executed the Ukraine hoax. Any push back and fact gathering from the Seante would have delayed the Dems plans into Chicom virus season. But despite public prodding the GOP Senate abandoned POTUS to face the IC coup plot alone and here we are.
The Justice Department’s request this month to dismiss the charge against Flynn was signed by Timothy Shea, the interim U.S. attorney for D.C. at the time, and not by any of the prosecutors who had handled Flynn’s case up to that point.
The dismissal request has been highly controversial. Former prosecutors say it smacked of favoritism toward an ally of Trump, and some have specifically accused Attorney General William Barr of manipulating the justice system to help the president. Trump has frequently criticized the case against Flynn.
Do you really expect us to believe this codswallop?
Great info. Thanks from the peanut gallery for the analysis and post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.