On the wrong thread, but some have wanted to know how to access audio live streaming of oral arguments in the Flynn case.
Here is the Circuit Court page that provides access. The Flynn oral arguments are to begin at 9:30 am EDT tomorrow:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/mobile?OpenAgent&TodaysSitting
Here is the Circuit Court page that provides access. The Flynn oral arguments are to begin at 9:30 am EDT tomorrow:
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/sixtyday.nsf/mobile?OpenAgent&TodaysSitting
From the First Page, Judge Gleeson’s Brief Against Flynn is a Travesty
ReplyDeleteIf the Circuit trio rules vs. Sullivan (e.g., by tossing him from the case), can he appeal to the En Banc full circuit (e.g. vs. their order for Flynn's freedom)?
ReplyDeleteIf so, how does that work?
Does the whole Circuit vote, on whether to hear his appeal?
How much time would that move use up?
From there, could he then go to SCOTUS?
Sorry, I don't know how that works. In the circs, I find it hard to believe that the full circuit would agree to review a 3-0 ruling. After all, the 3 would simply be upholding very clear DC Circuit precedent that is pretty much in line with very recent SCOTUS 9-0 precedent.
DeleteOK, but what if the D.S. can pull strings, to at least make it a 2-1 vote?
ReplyDeleteIf the full circuit would consider reviewing a 2-1 ruling, pulling those strings would be worth the effort for the D.S.
Thus, this (Circuit) vote figures to be easily the most consequential one, since the '74 Nixon SCotUS vote.
OTOH, if D.S. fails to stop a 3-0 vote, this'll be, in a key way, the biggest judicial defeat in D.S. history, and thus will give heart to those players considering sticking their necks out vs. the D.S.
DeleteIt's a helluva time to be alive, to see such a drama unfold.
Thank you, Mark, for pulling my Comment with the live streaming information out of the woods. I was so eager to get that up!
ReplyDeletePS. I believe the live streaming is audio, not video. We’ll find out. And it should be interesting either way
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your sharing. In turn I will give it to my Mom (who turns 91 tomorrow) and my older sister for their birthday tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteI’m sure nobody else will give them a history-making gift quite like this!! 🤣🎉🎂
Please note: due to anticipated high demand, the DC Circuit suggests catching the oral argument on its YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCa63PLarrn0AmtHw-ooYtuw
ReplyDeleteThe Flynn mandamus hearing is underway.
ReplyDeleteJudge Wilkins (Obama appointee) seems to be bending over to find a justification for Sullivan's continuing inquiry into the Government's motion to dismiss.
Judge Henderson (G H W Bush appointee) has asked a few question's sympathetic to Sullivan's position but has not showed her hand.
It does not appear that Judge Rao (Trump appointee) has spoken.
Rao has spoken, but briefly. Wilkins is suggesting that Sullivan's inquiry is fairly limited, but the US is pushing back strongly that it would, in effect, be a witchhunt against AG and POTUS.
DeleteWilkins just injected race with a tendentious hypothetical.
ReplyDeleteUS pushed back strongly on Separation of Power basis.
DeleteRao spoke after I posted.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree that Wilkins is suggesting that Sullivan's inquiry is 'limited'. Once the door to the inquiry is open where is the limit?
I'm referring here to Powell's argument especially who felt compelled to point out where this inquiry is headed. She clearly felt the need to emphasize that explicitly against an anodyne interpretation of simple oversight.
DeleteWilkins is suggesting that a district court can in the case of "racism" force appointment of a new prosecutor via public opinion. Hard cases make bad law.
ReplyDeleteUS points out that in the Flynn case the motion is unopposed by the parties.
DeleteUS is pushing back against Henderson who is claiming that Sullivan's inquiry is limited.
ReplyDeleteUS claims Sullivan is looking for a 'public spectacle' which is exactly what Fokker case opposed.
DeleteWilkinson is a racialist judge. He continues to work racial “examples” - white officers’ excessive use of force against a black - into his questioning. He interrupted Sidney Powell with so many of his questions, some repetitive, thereby cutting short her actual 15 minutes.
ReplyDeleteI believe Henderson told Powell she'd get more time after the US.
DeleteWall is impressive.
ReplyDeleteIn the absence of a constitutional concern the district court has no alternative than to grant the 48 motion.
But Henderson is now suggesting that mandamus is 'too' extraordinary. She wonders why the case shouldn't go back to Sullivan for decision on the motion to dismiss.
I'm thinking we're getting into 2-1 for Sullivan.
Which Wall suggests will lead to a political sh*tshow.
Wall is good.
DeleteIf this panel denies mandamus I'll go out on a limb and predict that the Government (in light of the Fokker controlling precedent) asks for rehearing en banc or appeals to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteI don't know whether I would say Wilkins is 'racialist' but he is certainly political. So much for the Chief Justice's suggestion that there are no 'Obama' judges.
ReplyDeleteHe is a rather stupid and obtuse judge, the kind we expect Obama to appoint.
DeleteRob S
Powell made a very strong statement. When the judges claimed that Sullivan had set a hearing for 7/15 to decide the motion, Powell shot back that this motion was not going to be decided but rather that the amicus inquiry would continue for another 6 months at least.
ReplyDeleteIn this she exposes what the real game is--a court appointed Special Prosecutor against AG and POTUS during the election.
Rao asks a good question. If the parties have agreed to dismiss, where is the 'case or controversy' that allows an amicus to (in effect) act as an adversary?
ReplyDeleteLet me rephrase that issue: If in a criminal case parties have agreed to dismiss, what authority does a job have to even consider appointing, in effect, a new prosecutor? Because that can only be the effect here.
DeleteWall is very good. Here is Wilkins on Good Morning, America three years ago:
ReplyDeleteJudge Robert Wilkins' experience of "driving while black"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYsl6AQBZn4
Yup. Its all political. Since there is no longer any question whether Flynn committed a prosecutable offense in the first place.
ReplyDeleteLawfare.
Wilkinson is arguing that all Sullivan wants to do is 'ask questions and hold a hearing.' Obvious lying that Powell exposed.
ReplyDeleteWilkinson continues to pretend that Sullivan might dismiss so let's wait and see. Rao is asking: Who does the amicus represent? W: Court wants an adversarial hearing, R: In a criminal case the gov is the adversary to the defendant. R keeps pushing, why does S need advice on the law from an outsider before ruling on a simple 48 motion.
ReplyDeleteRao will vote for the mandamus. Wilkins will vote against.
ReplyDeleteHenderson seems to be tending towards letting Sullivan decide the motion to dismiss. She is being played, because Sullivan has no intention of ruling on the motion to dismiss until he has conducted a full blown trial into the Government's motives for moving to dismiss.
Flynn will appeal.
Wilkinson is slippery and continues to claim that US is claiming Sullivan has no right to ask questions.
ReplyDeleteI can see that playing out. Wilkins plays race card again, red meat for Wilkinson.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, if somehow this proceeding results in Judge Sullivan's conducting an inquiry into the Government's motives (behavior) here, the result will be extraordinarily damning to Van Grack, Weissmann, Mueller, etc. and extraordinarily embarrassing to the Government. There is far more misconduct by the Government here than it has admitted.
ReplyDeleteWall just made this point very clearly.
Lawfare should be careful what it wishes for.
Wilkinson, Sullivan’s lawyer, is being dismantled by one of the female judges...
ReplyDeleteThat would be Rao.
DeleteSo, for us laymen. What happens now?
ReplyDeleteI'll do a quick and dirty post on that.
DeleteWilkins keeps using hypothetical involving the excessive use of force by a white officer against a “black victim”.
ReplyDeleteAt least the third time he’s used that.
Yes, and the hypothetical is inapt as to the facts in the Flynn case. However, the reason he's doing it is to provide the MSM with scare headlines re Barr's DoJ being anti-black. Even scarier is where he would seem to want to go--judges sniffing out non-PC motives and using this quasi prosecutorial power to force appointment of a new prosecutor who will go after unfavored defendants. This is where we're heading if Dems are elected.
DeleteSince this hearing was scheduled, Ive been expressing fears, that other forces (esp.the D.S.) would skew these judges toward grasping at straws for Sullivan.
ReplyDeleteNow, it's clear enough, that Wilkins is doing that bidding, and that Henderson may also go that way.
When addressing queries about "damage", I recall no hearing no stressing, from Powell or Wall, of the massive danger to the cred of the judicial branch, were it to allow this witch hunt to continue.
Maybe Powell & Wall needed to rub this panel's noses, into the prospect that their enabling this witch hunt will spur
secessionist feelings.
I fear that these judges are stuck in the D.C. echo chamber, where such feelings are snidely dismissed as Deplorable talk.
Yeah, seeking such a Writ is "extraordinary", because the conduct of Sullivan is extraordinary.
Today we may've heard a higher level, of the death rattle of the Const. system.
Wall did explicitly reference damage to the judiciary. And he's right. They'd become political pawns. They'd find themselves riding the tiger of PC opinion.
DeleteOK, he referenced it, but he and Sidney needed to hammer away at the scale of it, seeing as c. 1/2 of the country is outright certain that, contrary to Wilkins, there's *no chance* Sullivan will rule for Flynn.
DeleteI'll repeat, I must wager that Wilkins was puking out D.S. talking points.
Sidney and Wall needed to (implicitly) to rub the rest of the panel's noses into his.
Typo: "noses into this."
DeleteTypos corrected: "I've been expressing fears, that other forces (esp. the D.S.) would"
ReplyDeleteWall was outstanding. Sidney Powell sounded fatigued and Wilkins deliberately kept interrupting her and using up her time. He used far more than the two minutes they gave to her at the end.
ReplyDeleteI liked the remark about Gleeson’s being an “intemperate amicus…”
Wilkinson did not live up to her billing. But she really didn’t seem to have much to work with.
I disagree to this extent--I think Powell was quite good, made some really excellent points and argued well. I think it's a matter of style. Her very slow speech is difficult at times. Wall was very good, but I like more animation. That came through several times. His rebuttal points were often very well expressed.
DeleteFor just a hint of the fire with which these folks are playing, see words of a burnt-out cop, at https://www.lawofficer.com/america-we-are-leaving/ :
ReplyDelete"... This weekend I received death threats, for just doing my job. It would have been outrageous a decade ago, and made national news.
Now, it’s just a Monday.
There will be more threats, more accusations of racism, and more lies told about us.
I used to talk cops out of leaving the job. Now I’m *encouraging* them.
It’s over America. You finally did it.
You aren’t going to have to abolish the police, we won’t be around for it.
And while I know, most Americans still appreciate us, it’s not enough, and the risk is too high. Those of you that say thank you, or buy the occasional meal, it means everything.
But those of you that were silent, while the slow turning of the knives in our backs happened by thugs and cowards, this is on you.
Your belief in hashtags and memes over the truth, has and will create an environment in your community, that you will never expect.
If you think Minneapolis will turn into Mogadishu, and that is far from you, it’s coming.
And when it does, remember what your complicity did.
This is the America that you made."
After listening to the arguments before the court it became very obvious to me that none of the lawyers or the judges gave a damn about justice.
ReplyDeleteNo one stood on the high ground and said that the prosecutors were guilty of malpractice, lying to the court etc, that the initial defense team failed to properly defend their client, and that the DOJ review of the evidence in the case proved the defendant was innocent of the original charges, and based on THOSE actions by both the prosecution and defence (not to mention the imcompetence of the judge throughout the process) the defendant was not given a fair trial.
Once again justice has failed because lawyers couldnt see the forest for the trees, and argued nuance rather than the big picture. As a result, a fractured decision is inevitable, leading to additional miscarriages of justice not only for General Flynn but future defendants as well.