Comments

Judge Gleeson’s brief in the mandamus case — 18 Comments

1. Sadly, the animus toward Donald Trump in Washington is so deep and pervasive, that anyone who is willing to aid him in any way is anathema and must be attached. And, someone like General Flynn, who knows the system and where the bodies are buried, must be utterly destroyed. It’s going to take something very serious to prevent the country from succumbing to totalitarian control by the Democrats and the elites with whom they are intertwined. Each day, new developments move me closer to despair…..

2. The Resistance wasn’t kidding when they were going to overturn 44 successive peaceful and law bound changes in US national government. By hook or crook it shall be done!

   I still see no peaceful way forward unless these evil tyrants see that their way demands a price in their blood. They. Will. Not. Yield.

   It’s depressing that so few on the right see this Truth. I’ve felt this in June of 2017, after the Battle of Eugene Simpson Field, where a Bernie bro attempted to assassinate 25 Republican Congressmen, including at least one Senator; I felt that at the start when Federal prosecutor van Graack resigned and even the wise Defense attorney Sydney Powell could not guess at this extreme course.

   We need an armed million man March for Justice against the Obamunist coup plot on the Washington, national mall. Perhaps that will rouse the deniers on both sides?

   Trump is the People’s Tribune. The hate America First traitors must Kill us! Or be Killed!

   Obviously, then, Mirengoff sees no resolution until the Court meets en banc. Delay, delay, delay….just as some Sullivan watchers foresaw him doing, trying to keep Trump Hate Alive! Because “Yes We Can!” Means only Far Left Traitors, as Barry taught us.

   If there is a Silver Lining, it is only that the corruption of law could be complete, as in Israel, where only “Justices” appoint more judges. An autonomous Aristocracy of “law.” Think of it..

3. All judges, including SCOTUS, need to have turn limits. In most states our state judges are subjected to a popular vote to remain or exit. I realize federal judges shouldn’t be subjected to a national vote, but term limits are necessary. 10 years for SCOTUS, 6 years for appellate judges, and 4 years for the Sullivans.

   Plus no reappointments or pensions. It’s not like we have a shortage of lawyers.

4. Sidney Powell, in her presentation today to the DC Circuit panel, pointed out that everybody’s attorneys are being paid by taxpayers, except for Flynn’s. Stringing this out to save face for Judge Sullivan would be yet another injustice.

5. If Mirengoff is right, this is a scandal. The ‘sentencing hearing’ has been dragging on for 18 months.

   Our court system is godawful.

6. FWIW, I didn’t listen to the argument or read the briefs.

   But I have to say–I’m sure Paul Mirengoff is a decent and well-informed guy, but I have rarely seen him be correct about any prediction in the many years I have been reading Powerline.

   OTOH, he seems to have a very acute “inside the Beltway” sensibility.

   It could go either way.

7. I listened carefully to the entire event and Gleeson’s council presentation was all “word salad” mumbo-jumbo, masturbation. One judge kept asking questions about racial animus and crazy hypotheticals. It is frightening that this passes for top flight legal talent. The swamp doesn’t believe in justice.

8. Here’s a point that I have not seen emphasized anywhere: Flynn is not a lawyer.

   If a bunch of lawyers come at you and say “you’re guilty” (and, oh by the way, if you do not plead guilty, we’ll ruin you and your family financially) how exactly are you supposed to know that you are not guilty? The lawyers look you in the eye and say: Did you do this and this? You say sure, that’s what I did. You remember what you did — but you still don’t know the law. If the lawyers tell you, OK you did that so you’re guilty — then who are you to disagree?

   If later on, another group of lawyers comes by and says: Even though you did all this, you’re not guilty because — whatever — then you will change your plea. Why not? You now know you’re not guilty!

   To repeat: Flynn is not a lawyer. He can remember in incredible detail exactly what he did and still not know enough to plead guilty or not guilty. This is a point that “Judge S.” seems to miss in his determination to charge Flynn with perjury.

9. Parker — term limits are no solution. In politics, term limits empower bureaucrats to defeat voters. With judges, they would only empower the corrupt and increasingly dangerous law schools that produce clerks or interns that advise judges. Today, Social Justice Warrior lawyers are all the rage (take my nieces BF in Brooklyn, for example — no, please, take him away). The result is this fiasco, as defense attorney Roberts Barnes shows.

   Sidney Powell a month ago says this would be over in a couple weeks at most.
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vaKhy4ROTI

   Not. Hopeful, but naive to the depths of the Deep State and SWJ politicisation of law.

   Henry David — “The swamp does not believe in justice.” No, they believe in imposing equal outcomes as ‘fairness.’ Unequal? Let’s topple it! In power, they seek to redistribute it by force.

   Just deserts for all! Who can object to that?

   Biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying – honest leftists – were persecuted, even hunted, by student mobs wielding bats, threatening their lives, at Evergreen State College in Washington state some three years ago.

   They warned that these SWJ mobs ideas would not stay on campus, but had spread to high tech, then the courts. And soon it would jeopardise civilisation

   Their Darkhorse podcast from six days ago is labeled “Avoiding Civil War.”

   That’s where we are today, they worry that Civil War comes next. Bret explains that a man from Homeland Security, tasked with protecting federal courts buildings in cities, for example. Non lethal options to protect them from rioting mobs like in Portland, OR, are being denied to them. Bret says the anar hi DTD are seeking a lethal massacre by Feds to extract martyrs to leverage the toppling of…..?

10. Re Cato Renasci: “Each day, new developments move me closer to despair…..”

    My thought exactly.

11. I may be wrong, but I think this is the first time we’ve heard directly from Gen. Flynn since all of this started. I believe that he is still under a gag order pertaining to the case itself; retaining that silencing may be part of Sullivan’s intent.

    https://www.westernjournal.com/exclusive-gen-flynn-forces-evil-want-steal-freedom-dark-night-god-stands-us/

12. My concern is no longer for Gen Flynn, as worst case Trump will pardon him. My concern is not with the contemptible ‘judge’ Gleeson, who is another Beria. My concern is with the District Court, “One judge kept asking questions about racial animus and crazy hypotheticals.”

    Apparently, far too many liberal/leftist judges fail to appreciate that when all the laws are cut down, none of them will survive the winds that shall blow.

    “When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.” Thomas Jefferson

13. Lately on TWITTER-

    I’ve seen a lot of [US artists] + cartoonists, or their friends, using tyrant language.language like this, paraphrased:

    “Hey white people! We’re in charge, and WE will tell you what the truth is!”

    Nope. Nope.

    A lot of white people [saying bullying stuff], in the 1940s + before, [didn’t] make the white people look good.

    And bullying language doesn’t look GOOD on anyone else, either.

    It is UNFAIR, + makes everyone who uses it look bad.

    It is wrong for anyone to use it-

    Now, and Forever.

14. In saying the above-
    I don’t mean to single out white people, or any group of people.
    But- I do mean to point out, that a lot of bullying language + actions were done, in the 1940s + before.

15. “When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.” Thomas Jefferson

    As with the most inspiring, and true, maxims, the thing that matters most is not defined.
    Just who is defining the tyranny against which one has a duty to rebel?

    As Jefferson’s contemporary, Ben Franklin, supposedly said, “A rebellion is always legal in the first person…”

    Right now, the left & Democrats (to cover all the bases label-wise) are pushing the narrative that Trump and Republicans and conservatives (an uneasy coalition, so it seems) are the tyrants.

    Facts on the ground, to any rational observer, show that it is the left — while claiming to be in rebellion against that perceived right-wing tyranny — which is promoting actual tyranny through, most recently, strategically supporting planned anarchy masquerading as civil protest — and, most importantly in this context, persuading mayors and governors to give them the color of law by their approval.

    Good luck persuading the consumers of popular media which perception is more valid.

    Case in point:
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/06/11/woke-mayor-says-seattle-armed-occupied-zone-is-a-peaceful-expression-of-collective-grief/

16. “Just who is defining the tyranny against which one has a duty to rebel?” AesopFan

    A question each American must answer for themselves. The more egregious the tyranny, the more consensus forms.

    “all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”

17. To the Left, Trump is perceived as a tyrant simply because he is not allowing—he has blocked, for now—the Left from being the tyrants they so dearly wish to be.

    This is Trump’s huuuuge crime.

    He has prevented the foxes from gaining (or in this case “continuing to be in”) total control of the henhouse; prevented the inmates from gaining total control of the asylum; prevented the destroyers from totally controlling, so as to destroy, the country (even as they’ve been successful in weakening significant swaths of it).

    This is the reason why he must be hounded out of office.

    This is the reason why anyone who supports him must be sent to a figurative gulag (which may well become a real one).

    …with the MSCM running very effective interference for the destroyers.

    And so, the question is whether the American People will step up—that is, those who haven’t been overcome by the noxious fumes, those who persist in understanding what is really going on here and who are motivated to protect their country, its values and its citizens who are being hounded and intimidated by the Democratic Party hordes.

    As for Gleeson, he (with Sullivan) can bluff all he wants. He KNOWS that his delaying tactics, lies and deceptions will be effective. He KNOWS that he will be portrayed as a heroic figure by the usual suspects.

    And even if he “loses” this gambit, he will have further “WON” by further weakening the rule of law, further eroding the trust in American institutions, further damaging the country’s social fabric…all of which have became a Democratic Party specialty since the 2009 Democratic magnum opus—transforming America—was officially launched.

    Still, we don’t know what will happen. Perhaps the optimists will ultimately win the day. I hope so. The Democrats and their MSCM Revolutionary Guard rely on the demoralization of “We the People” as they do their utmost to deepen and exacerbate the crisis.

18. Margot Cleveland made this observation about a portion of the questioning in the circuit court, which I remember hearing during the live-stream.
    https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/12/will-the-dc-circuit-court-order-sullivan-to-dismiss-the-flynn-case-it-all-comes-down-to-one-judge/

    One key area of inquiry concerned the power of a federal judge to question federal prosecutors on their motive for seeking dismissal. What is the “leave of court” standard? Rao asked, noting it was more than a rubber stamp, but surely not a deep-dive into the executive branch’s decision-making.

    Wilkins pushed the same line of inquiry, but with the goal of cornering the Trump administration into a fateful admission: What if the government decided to drop an excessive force charge against a white police officer where the victim was black? Could the court question the Department of Justice’s decision? Would the court be required to dismiss that prosecution?

    Wall, who argued for the DOJ, deftly handled the inflammatory question, noting that the DOJ would never act in such a way and that he has never seen such conduct, but if such a situation occurred, it would present an equal protection issue — something far afield of the case before the court. And there would be other remedies for racist-based failure to prosecute a case, Wall assured the court.

    I have not yet seen anyone argue that the situation the judge hypothesized about has actually happened, only in reverse image, where the DOJ did exactly what Wall said they would never do.

    Obama’s AG, Eric Holder, intervened in an almost completed case to dismiss the charges against the defendants — despite the default judgement against them that was on the verge of happening — and his action was widely heralded by the left/Democrats, grumbled about by the right/Republicans, and no equal protection issue was raised in court (only in Congress, committees, and the press), much less a remedy applied.

    That is, of course, the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers in the 2008 election. The Wiki accords pretty well with what I remember, so we’ll use its article, but it was interesting that my DDG search pulled that up first, followed by a screen of generally-conservative outlets (Fox, Judicial Watch, NRO, CSM, WSJ, WashTimes).
    A Google search with the exact same argument “new black panther voter intimidation case” led with Wiki, cited the same WSJ & CS Monitor posts that DDG had, and added a couple each by NPR and Politico — no Fox, no WT, and definitely no Judicial Watch.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case

    The conduct for which members of the New Black Panther Party were accused of voter intimidation took place on Election Day in November 2008, at a polling station in a predominantly African-American, Democratic voting district of Philadelphia.[4]

    Two members of the New Black Panther Party, Minister King Samir Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, stood in front of the entrance to the polling station in uniforms that have been described as military or paramilitary.[5][6] Minister King Samir Shabazz carried a billy club, and is reported to have pointed it at voters while both men shouted racial slurs,[7] including phrases such as “white devil” and “you’re about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”[8]

    The incident drew the attention of police, who around 10:00 am, sent King Samir away in part because of his billy club. Jackson was allowed to stay, in part because he was a certified poll watcher.[9] Stephen Robert Morse, a journalist and filmmaker, upon arriving at the scene, pulled out a Flip video camera and focused on Samir Shabazz.[10] The incident gained national attention after being uploaded to YouTube and quickly going viral. No complaints were filed by voters about the incident, although poll watchers witnessed some voters approach the polls and then turn away, apparently in response to the New Black Panther Party members.[11]

    Legal proceedings
    The Department of Justice became aware of the Election Day incident and started an inquiry. In January 2009, less than two weeks before the Bush Administration left office, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice filed a civil suit under the Voting Rights Act against four defendants, including Shabazz.[12][failed verification]

    In April 2009 Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer who was serving as a poll watcher at the polling station where the incident occurred, submitted an affidavit at the Department of Justice’s request supporting the lawsuit, stating that he considered it to have been the most severe instance of voter intimidation he had ever encountered.[7]

    When none of the defendants who were charged appeared in court to answer the charges, the career attorneys pursuing the lawsuit assumed that they would win it by default. However the move to pursue a default judgment was overruled by two of their line superiors, Loretta King, who was acting Assistant Attorney General, and Steve Rosenbaum, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General.[5] The federal government dropped charges against all defendants except Shabazz in May 2009.[13] A spokesperson for the Department of Justice stated that the claims were “dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law.”[14] Questions about the validity of this explanation served as the basis for subsequent controversy over the case, which was investigated by the United States Commission on Civil Rights,[5] Republican members of Congress,[4] and the DOJ.[10] The federal government eventually obtained an injunction forbidding Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling location.[13][15]

    Legal precedents
    Since the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965, only a handful of cases under the Act have been pursued by the Justice Department. One such case filed by the Department during the Bush Administration, known as United States v. Brown, was one of the first voting rights cases which involved a white plaintiff and a black defendant. The case precipitated deep divisions within the Justice Department. Some employees felt that the voting rights act was passed because historically, it was minorities who had been disenfranchised and that the department should therefore focus on cases filed by minorities, while others felt that it was intended to protect all voters in a race-neutral manner. Employees who worked the Brown case have described being harassed by colleagues due to the widespread belief that civil rights laws should not be used to protect white voters. One Justice Department official stated that “The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around.”[10]
    …
    Some Republican members of Congress have been critical of the decision to narrow the scope of the case, including Representatives Frank Wolf of Virginia and Lamar Smith of Texas. Wolf was quoted by the Washington Times as asking, “If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable?” Smith expressed skepticism at the Obama administration’s stated justification for narrowing it, stating “The administration still has failed to explain why it did not pursue an obvious case of voter intimidation. Refusal to address these concerns only confirms politicization of the issue and does not reflect well on the Justice Department.”[20]

    In July 2009, Smith requested a meeting with the head of the Justice Department’s Voting Rights Section in order to discuss whether political appointees had been involved in the decision to narrow the case, stating that news reports contradicted the Justice Department’s earlier claim that political appointees had not been involved, and that earlier congressional inquiries about this had been unsuccessful.

    The writing was on the wall for all to see — “no justice, no peace” cuts both ways, but conservatives don’t riot.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>