Yes!
Although now that you mention it … one can have questions or one can have plausible doubts – but “plausible questions” is a bit of a … misnomer.
1 Like
If Flynn is sentenced by Sullivan and he appeals, then who argues against the appeal? Isn’t that typically the task of DOJ? In which case it would be tossed by the appeals court, unless Sullivan made a very, very strong case against it. IANAL, so I really don’t know, but is the sentencing court an active participant in the appeals process?
4 Likes
(Just ask anyone who has had to appear before a Black judge who knows he/she is being underestimated and second-guessed as a professional.)
5 Likes
In this situation I’m going to assume that they meant exactly what they wrote. One could raise the question of whether Michael Flynn is really a lizard man from V in a human suit, but that is not a plausible question. In a case involving Sidney Powell it is important to make that distinction.
3 Likes
in such a small amount of time. Barr really can move his fat ass when he wants to.
2 Likes
You now see now bestest Trump is. He didn’t settle for a trifecta of winners, he went for the quadfecta!
5 Likes
I will add this here because it seems to contain language and assertions that I didn’t see in the TPM story.
Bill Barr’s prosecutors have ‘not conclusively established’ they have ‘acted properly’ in moving to dismiss Flynn case: Federal judge
13 Likes
I do know what you mean – but I’d rather go with the word’s five-hundred-year history. I can be bloody-minded like that!
1 Like
They’d lie uneasier if a different panel had been drawn.
7 Likes
Sad but true.
Back before the Federalist Society-and who does fund it, anyway?-became the chooser of judges, I would have said it was easy to imagine a denial of mandamus being the end of it but impossible for a brazenly political 2-1 grant of mandamus where it is not warranted or permitted not to end up being reheard en banc.
But we no longer live under the rule of law and anything could happen.
9 Likes
In addition to questions, in addition to doubts, let us not forget the slogan of this administration. Plausible (but untrue) deniability!
1 Like
One hopes this is only the end of the 2nd act, with an en banc review serving as intermission.
3 Likes
Here’s a crazy question (I’ll refrain from calling it “plausible”):
If Newt Gingrich could put together and have people run on his “Contract on America” (I paraphrase), then do you think someone could put together and have people run on a campaign to have Congress impeach and remove all obviously unqualified federal judges and replace them with non-hacks?
3 Likes
Judge Sullivan’s response proves what I have long thought about William Barr. That is he’s dirty and sloppy as hell! He truly stinks up a storm with his unwashed dusty ass!
8 Likes
Yeah, but her emails…so this gets to be heard and fondled and raped by a couple Trump supporting GOP ideologue Federalists. Rao might even pee on it.
3 Likes
Correction: WE do…THEY don’t. If this was Tyrone Biggums’ prosecution for his $500,000 free crack giveaway party, you can bet your ass he’d be in jail for pleading guilty no matter that the prosecution was dropped.
3 Likes
Moral fiber. The Hon. Judge Sullivan clearly has some. Let’s see about the appeals judges.
5 Likes
A quadfecta of defecta?