a lot of that is somewhat dramatized imo, but yes at this stage its probably the best sign that the appellate judge is actually conflicted over this. doesnt necessarily mean he is leaning in any particular direction.
absolutely correct that most writs are summarily denied (both writs i have filed were summarily denied), and the mere decision to take it on is a big relief for Flynn. i dont think ordering sullivan to submit a response is really that alarming
How long you been practicing?
“In more than 30 years of practicing law, almost exclusively in federal courts, I have never seen a federal appeals court direct a district court judge to personally respond to a litigant’s motion, pe ion, or appeal.”
“Wow. I have never seen an appellate court direct a district court judge to file a response to a mandamus. This is extraordinary.”
https://www.mcadoolaw.com/
Have you ever seen the prosecution drop a case during sentencing?How long you been practicing?
“In more than 30 years of practicing law, almost exclusively in federal courts, I have never seen a federal appeals court direct a district court judge to personally respond to a litigant’s motion, pe ion, or appeal.”
“Wow. I have never seen an appellate court direct a district court judge to file a response to a mandamus. This is extraordinary.”
https://www.mcadoolaw.com/
i haven't been practicing all that long, about 2.5 years tbhHow long you been practicing?
“In more than 30 years of practicing law, almost exclusively in federal courts, I have never seen a federal appeals court direct a district court judge to personally respond to a litigant’s motion, pe ion, or appeal.”
“Wow. I have never seen an appellate court direct a district court judge to file a response to a mandamus. This is extraordinary.”
https://www.mcadoolaw.com/
but i dont deal with federal appeals, so admittedly out of my domain. if its specifically about the judge's supposed abuse of discretion i would imagine this is the expected result. usually in an appeal or writ the parties at the trial level are adversarial... so if the defendant pursued a writ the prosecutor would be opposing it
this situation is different because neither of the parties are the natural opposition, so it really has to be the judge. most cases dont have the 2 parties in agreement with the judge standing in the way, which is why i dont see it as particularly striking. the dynamic of 2 parties agreeing with the judge is the barrier is almost certainly unusual, so i would imagine a lot of what's going on is uncommon. that doenst mean sullivan being ordered to oppose the writ is unexpected given the dynamic at hand
Eh, that's fair.
Presuming the bona fides of Mike Pence is a big a for me, I guess in the absence of evidence Pence lied about tje situation, we have to assume he might not have. What Flynn was aiming at was. This was not a complixated deal, or even a well hidden one. completely conaistent with the established pattern of being conciliatory toward the GRU.
This was not aome complicated, hard to understand deal. Ot was not even particularly well hidden.
DC Court of Appeals good for now... we'll see in 10 days...
i haven't been practicing all that long, about 2.5 years tbh
but i dont deal with federal appeals, so admittedly out of my domain. if its specifically about the judge's supposed abuse of discretion i would imagine this is the expected result. usually in an appeal or writ the parties at the trial level are adversarial... so if the defendant pursued a writ the prosecutor would be opposing it
this situation is different because neither of the parties are the natural opposition, so it really has to be the judge. most cases dont have the 2 parties in agreement with the judge standing in the way, which is why i dont see it as particularly striking. the dynamic of 2 parties agreeing with the judge is the barrier is almost certainly unusual, so i would imagine a lot of what's going on is uncommon. that doenst mean sullivan being ordered to oppose the writ is unexpected given the dynamic at hand
My copy/paste phone/pdf looks as good as your drunken reply
Nor was anything said on the calls themselves to indicate an inappropriate relationship betweenMr.Flynnand a foreign power. Indeed,Mr.Flynn’srequest that Russia avoid “escalating”tensionsinresponsetoU.S.sanctionsinane fforttomollifygeopoliticaltensions was consistent with him advocatingfor,not against,the interestsof the UnitedStates.
https://int.nyt.com/data/do enthel...mized/full.pdf
Sullivan got his slapped...there’s nothing more to see.
My copy/paste phone/pdf looks as good as your drunken reply
Nor was anything said on the calls themselves to indicate an inappropriate relationship betweenMr.Flynnand a foreign power. Indeed,Mr.Flynn’srequest that Russia avoid “escalating”tensionsinresponsetoU.S.sanctionsinane fforttomollifygeopoliticaltensions was consistent with him advocatingfor,not against,the interestsof the UnitedStates.
https://int.nyt.com/data/do enthel...mized/full.pdf
hahahahahaha!
GTFO of here with that
flynn is saying to our sworn enemy: “ the usa president- we will NOT punish you or hold you responsible for attacking the usa- just chill and dont retaliate - and we will happily collude with you and drop those sanctions because you got trump elected!”
quid pro quo
ing disgusting traitor -
and you defend this
Flynn didn’t discuss sanctions. I thought you read the Mueller report 5-6 times.
Flynn didn’t discuss sanctions. I thought you read the Mueller report 5-6 times.
ing idiot
so what was he asking kislyak to “not retaliate” from?
from obamas sanctions for their meddling
ing moron
He read the words "the Mueller report" 5 or 6 times.Flynn didn’t discuss sanctions. I thought you read the Mueller report 5-6 times.
Flynn asked them to respond proportionally to the 35 expelled Russians. You never read the Mueller report once let alone 5-6 times
We need to prosecute to find out what's in it.Flynn didn’t discuss sanctions. I thought you read the Mueller report 5-6 times.
yes he asked them to “not retaliate”Flynn asked them to respond proportionally to the 35 expelled Russians. You never read the Mueller report once let alone 5-6 times
because obama expeled russians and placed sanctions on russian intelligence
ing misinformed
so obama sanctioned russia
which part of “obama sanctioned russia” are you ing confused about and think it is unrelated to sanctions?
Flynn asked them to respond proportionally to the 35 expelled Russians. You never read the Mueller report once let alone 5-6 times
From the Mueller report;
On December 29, 2016, then-President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for havinginterfered in the election. Incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn called RussianAmbassador Sergey Kislyak and asked Russia not to escalate the situation in response to thesanctions. The following day, Putin announced that Russia would not take retaliatory measures inresponse to the sanctions at that time. Hours later, President-Elect Trump tweeted, “Great moveon delay (by V. Putin).” The next day, on December 31, 2016, Kislyak called Flynn and told himthe request had been received at the highest levels and Russia had chosen not to retaliate as a resultof Flynn’s request.*
Is Mueller lying?
ing russian bot.
Last edited by Spurs Homer; 05-21-2020 at 10:52 PM.
Spurs Homer getting rekt
hey russian bots getting activated automatically!Spurs Homer getting rekt
Lol
comrade TSA ran away like a little after getting schooled on facts
Not sure if he is lying but he was incorrect. Flynn asked them to respond proportionally to 35 expelled Russians, he didn't ask them to not respond to sanctions.
Mueller good now?
1. "The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."
2. "The investigation examined whether [contacts between Russia and Trump figures] involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump Campaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the Campaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future. Based on the available information, the investigation did not establish such coordination."
3. "The investigation did not establish that [Carter] Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 election."
4. "The Office did not identify evidence in those [contacts between Russians and people around Trump after the GOP convention] of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."
5. "The Office did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling data and Russia's interference in the election ... [and] the investigation did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian government on its election-interference efforts."
6. "The investigation did not establish that these [contacts between Russians and people around Trump during the transition] reflected or cons uted coordination between the Trump Campaign and Russia in its election interference activities."
7. "The investigation did not identify evidence that any U.S. persons conspired or coordinated with the [Russian disinformation campaign]."
And I'm still waiting for you to show me where Mueller was tasked to investigate the conspiracy of Manafort, Gates, Flynn, Page, and Papadopolous and told he could not charge them with conspiracy. Chop chop!
You wouldn't understand as it's admittedly out of your domain.
It's your domain, counselor.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
