Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.
Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.
As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.
If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.
Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890
Do y'all have any idea what "exculpatory" means? Do you have a dictionary?
Comey saying that the calls "appear legit" is exculpatory, in that it shows that the Crossfire Razor case should not have been continued.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.
Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.
As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.
If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.
Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890
Do y'all have any idea what "exculpatory" means? Do you have a dictionary?
Sure. An example being that the FBI was going to drop their investigation because no derogatory information had been uncovered. Until Strzok got involved.
This wasn't given to the defense.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.
Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.
As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.
If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.
Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890
Do y'all have any idea what "exculpatory" means? Do you have a dictionary?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.
Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.
As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.
If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.
Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890
Do y'all have any idea what "exculpatory" means? Do you have a dictionary?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.
Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.
As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.
If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.
Oh, don't worry. What PP wrote is true. Newly released Strzok notes show that Comey said in the WH meeting that the Flynn calls "appear legit"....that Obama wanted the "right people" on the case...and Biden advocating for the Logan Act.
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog/status/1275803339738021890
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.
Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.
As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.
If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.
Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.
As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.
If any of what you wrote were true, this ruling wouldn't be so awful.
Anonymous wrote:It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.
Actually, it is precedential. That was the basis of the appeal. DOJ asked it to be dropped.
As for the Defense, there was plenty of exculpatory information to show that the prosecution should never have happened. Misbehavior on the part of FBI and exculpatory information was withheld from defense. Apparently, more exculpatory information about Strozk was released yesterday.
It might be taken up by the entire DC Circuit Court. If not, it'll likely be treated as a one-off, similar to Bush v. Gore. Political rather than precedential. Which doesn't make the courts look good.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.
The opinion is embarrassing. There should be no writ of mandamus issued at this time because Judge Sullivan hasn't even ruled yet on the Motion to Dismiss. The full Circuit needs to hear this en banc and reverse this ridiculous ruling.
Might that happen? This is confusing for non lawyers.
If Sullivan chooses to pursue this, it will be obvious this is political and not about justice.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.
The opinion is embarrassing. There should be no writ of mandamus issued at this time because Judge Sullivan hasn't even ruled yet on the Motion to Dismiss. The full Circuit needs to hear this en banc and reverse this ridiculous ruling.
Might that happen? This is confusing for non lawyers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.
The opinion is embarrassing. There should be no writ of mandamus issued at this time because Judge Sullivan hasn't even ruled yet on the Motion to Dismiss. The full Circuit needs to hear this en banc and reverse this ridiculous ruling.
Might that happen? This is confusing for non lawyers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.
The opinion is embarrassing. There should be no writ of mandamus issued at this time because Judge Sullivan hasn't even ruled yet on the Motion to Dismiss. The full Circuit needs to hear this en banc and reverse this ridiculous ruling.
Anonymous wrote:The opinion does not make Sullivan look good. It basically says that he screwed up, royally.