SectionC3
-
Posts
7,501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by SectionC3
-
-
20 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Dude has an issue with originality. His hoax and fake news list is boring.........
I have a feeling his wife wakes up next too him every morning, rolls her eyes and says "you're still here you idiot?" so I think you have your answer.
Since Tom left it's been pretty much a free for all on that. We're working on a solution. We'll send out an email when we have a viable plan.
***** I've been in Corp America Management too long.
Out standing in your field.
Who's "we"?
-
1 minute ago, PelotonBillsFan said:
But why? It was all a hoax, right?
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to stop release of Mueller material
Totally. The hoaxiest thing ever. No Obstruction!
-
2 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:
I'm laughing at all the lefty comments here and in the media criticizing Trump if he addresses anything but the pandemic. When GW Bush was President he got hammered for spending his time almost entirely on 2 wars and not addressing other issues.
You're right. Makes total sense. Trying to undo a guilty plea with respect to a nonviolent crime deserves attention equal to that given to competing world public health and economic crises.
-
23 minutes ago, GG said:
Improve the quality of posts that you like to post
Do you mean that my posts should be improved? I'm a little confused by what you said. Also, who judges the quality of the posts?
-
19 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth be told%2Fknown
You need to do a little work on the "well researched" part there, 3rd Chair. Give you an inch and you'll fvck it up.
Coming from a guy who knows a thing or two about an inch.
18 minutes ago, bdutton said:Here is an excellent timeline for everything Flynn/FISA/Trump Collusion hoax
I'm losing track of all the hoaxes here. Is there any information about the virus hoax? That seems to be the more pressing matter.
-
1
-
-
Just now, GG said:
Cardinal Rule of PPP, you're an idiot unless proven otherwise.
How is one proven to be not an idiot?
-
Just now, GG said:
You're not so new here to not know the rules.
What are the rules? Where do I find a copy? And who set the rules?
-
14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Nonsense! Stay on your house! Keep sheltering! We’ve got a country to ruin!
Keep America Great.
-
1 hour ago, GG said:
Yeah, when you go from 1 case to 4, the growth rate is astronomical.
Have you been called an idiot today yet?
Name calling is not nice, sir.
-
13 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:
Too bad your law license doesn't somehow give you common sense. All that you've proven here is that piece of paper has given you the ability to talk around any subject without getting to the point. Common sense with a well researched approach will will beat a glib talking lawyer in a fair court anytime. Truth be known, judges sort of get a kick out of it.
The idiom is "truth be told," Eric.
Also, it seems like you, too, have become an Internet legal expert. Congratulations!
-
8 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:
The only posters on this board fixated on the Klan are you Tiibs, Warren, and a couple others. It seems a little disturbing and I'm just curious as to why? Is there something you would like to get off your chest and share with everyone? We're genuinely concerned and here to support you if you would like to achieve sound mental health.
Just think of us as another one of your support groups.
Sounds like you're coming down with a case of Biden Derangement Syndrome.
-
8 minutes ago, billsfan1959 said:
Why would you want anybody to hold Klan rallies? Very disturbing, Tibs...
Why would you support someone who holds thinly-veiled Klan rallies? Very disturbing, old timer.
-
7 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:
My guess is that a public defender attorney or someone in private practice but primarily a defense attorney, would be better than the myriad of real estate attorneys who think they can adequately defend someone in a criminal case or perform well as a divorce attorney, etc. It's like saying a podiatrist can adequately treat cardiovascular issues. In other words, stay in their lane.
And yet people on this website are not shy about acting like legal experts.
-
2 hours ago, snafu said:
When the prosecution dropped the case, my first reaction was that I would have liked Sullivan to had the chance to rule on the Defense’s motion to dismiss, to take away any stink of influence. I believe there’s a good chance that Sullivan would have permitted Flynn to withdraw the plea.
In any event, the Order Sullivan issued says (paraphrased, but you get the point):
(A) the court anticipates that amici will seek to file briefs. It does NOT say that Sullivan is looking to appoint anyone in particular.
(B) the judge has discretion to determine who, when and in what manner to permit someone to intervene as an amicus. So just asking to participate isn’t a given.
(C) there are certain restrictions:
(1) allowable when a party isn’t properly represented. So is Sullivan saying he’s going to consider an amicus to step into the shoes of a prosecutor? That seems like a massive expansion.
(2) when an amicus has an interest in some other case which would be affected by this case. Nothing pops to mind.
(3) when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond what the attorneys can provide. This is a simple criminal matter at heart with run of the mill criminal procedure issues. Sullivan can probably figure all this out for himself.
His entire order is about people seeking leave of court to file amicus briefs. If Sullivan wanted an individual to investigate the reason for the DOJ’s actions (which is what you speculate), then this Order doesn’t get the job done. In fact, I’m not sure there’s ANY recourse to the Judge except his own ability to inquire about the motives of the prosecution. To me, Sullivan is punting on second down. He’s got a lot of criminal court experience from the bench. He can do his job without help (whatever he decides, I don’t really care). His order is B.S.
You kind of miss the point. He’s not inviting an investigation. He’s inviting participation from people who will stand in the shoes if the government and say that there is/is not legal reason for the government to take this peculiar approach. Getting a whole bunch of people, or a couple of the rght people, to say that this is an inexplicable legal maneuver will support the idea that the flip flop was made not for legal reasons, but for political reasons.
edit: his experience (I’m taking you at your word on that one) and lack of need for guidance strongly suggests that he’s taking the approach I outline herein, ie, he smells a rat on the change on course and wants some other eyes, support, and, potentially, cover on the issue.
-
2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:
I've forgotten more about this case than you'll ever know. Sorry, you just keep proving how ignorant you are of basic facts.
Maybe that's true. But did you read the order in question? That's the issue here. Based on your responses, it looks like the answer to that one is that you haven't read it.
-
1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:
So, how does Sullivan deny amicus briefs when they were purported to be for Flynn (I had read 25 to-date, no idea if that is the correct number), but come up with this crazy scheme now?
And RBG just wrote up in a 9-0 ruling that "took judges to task for similar antics." (Forbes)
For the attorneys... how could this play out? There is no crime, there is no evidence of a crime, so... besides delaying the inevitable (a higher court slap-down, Sullivan finally signing the dismissal, or Trump pardoning Flynn), what could Sullivan be thinking? I know Obama suggested perjury in his "leaked phone call"
and so Sullivan brought that up (prosecutors hardest hit if a guilty plea really means "I am guilty" instead of "The prosecutor needs to mark down another win, the court does not really have the capacity to try every case, and poor people don't have the wherewithal to hire a great attorney to defend them"), but how would this reflect/impact on Sullivan if he goes through with this charade?
We have a guilty plea, right? If so, the whole "no crime" thing is ludicrous.
See other posts. Judge is doing this very, very fairly. Just because you political affinity for Flynn/Trump doesn't mean that the judge is engaging in a charade.
Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:...beginning to think Section 3 was a "Section 8".........uh oh.........
Another legal eagle! Let's hear your interpretation of what's going on here, old timer.
-
13 minutes ago, snafu said:
I’m just reading Sullivan’s order.
Seems to me like the function is not what you describe it to be.
I read it, too. Amicus can do whatever the court wants. And here the court wants to see if there is a legal reason for the government's change in position (which there could be, if Flynn was rope-a-doped in the plea machinations). Absent a legal reason, however, we'll be left with the stink of political influence. And the court likely will deny the application to withdraw the plea.
1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:I understand concepts, and while I appreciate the use of italic font, it's unnecessary here.
Absent the DOJ, the judge is irrelevant. When the DOJ decided the case was bogus, they had the option to pursue or dismiss. I already acknowledged the judge has the right to act as he sees fit, and is doing so. "Eminently fair" simply reflects words of art, with no application here. The judge has revealed himself to be politically motivated throughout the course of the trial, and you hit the nail on the head by suggesting"...the judge doesn't trust Barr here". Simple answer --who gives a sh*t? The judge sees to the end of his desk, the end of his caseload and nothing more. His role is not to be the judge of the Attorney General--he lacks capacity, knowledge, understanding and experience in the role. In short, he's practicing judicial activism, and should rightly be treated as such.
DOJ brought charges.
Flynn opted to plead.
Flynn realized a plea was the wrong way for him to proceed.
DOJ decided to withdraw the charges.
When is it coming? ?
See, that's where you're wrong here. This isn't just a prosecution anymore. To my knowledge (I haven't followed this closely), we have a conviction. And the judge has jurisdiction to determine whether to vacate the plea of guilty yielding the conviction. It's fair for the judge to seek information with respect to the prosecution's change in position. The judge's fidelity is to the rule of law, and if the judge feels that the change in position is politically motivated, it's within his discretion to deny the application to vacate the plea.
-
9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
Because he's only a third chair, and not a very good attorney.
Hoax. And, apparently neither of you two have read the tweet that snafu embedded in his initial post on the topic. Oops.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, snafu said:
That’s not the job of an amicus.
Their function isn’t an exploration nor is it an investigation. Sullivan set out the job requirements here, and even a wide reading doesn’t include what you’re describing — if this retired Judge is the one Sullivan appointed.
The job of the amicus is whatever the court decides the job of the amicus to be. If you feel differently, maybe you could ghost papers challenging the order importuning amicus comment.
-
Just now, Warren Zevon said:
but he was #FLYNNDICATED
Seriously - excellent post. I ran out of that patience long ago.
I've noticed that there are a lot of legal "experts" here. The guy I responded to is fairly thoughtful, so I thought he deserved a thoughtful response.
-
Just now, Reality Check said:
No, Flynn is an American hero and to this day, never lost his security clearance, and still works for the DIA.
I'll stop after the first sentence. The matters are different, and the link to the Stevens case probably is tenuous at best.
-
1 hour ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
Well, again, no.
Engaging in dialogue is fine, we can go back and forth on these issues all day long. The DOJ chose to withdraw the case, so by extension, a guilty plea by General Flynn would have resulted in an travesty of justice. I suppose it's possible you believe that every case is adjudicated with fairness, that no party is ever coerced into making a plea under threat of governmental tyranny, that every prosecutor is above board and no innocent party is ever found guilty of a crime. I don't think you believe that, but it aligns with your political values in this case.
Since the judge in the case has chosen to act as outlined, the only appropriate resolution is for Flynn's attorney to see it through. If the DOJ feels Sullivan is out of line, and they have the ability to remove him from the case lawfully, or isolate him generally, that would seem to be the best resolution for all parties involved. Clearly, the political animus rests with Judge Sullivan here. He's presided over the case, alleged 'treason' when no such claim was made, has chosen to disregard the thoughts of the DOJ, and sought out a politically motivated prosecutor to keep what is obviously a dog of a case forward. This squeezes Genera Flynn yet again, financially and emotionally, in spite of the obvious problems with the government case when there was one.
"Above board" is a funny turn of phrase. See, here, the trial judge obviously thinks the DOJ presently is acting out of political motivation, rather than in prosecutorial discretion, in taking this highly unusual step. The DOJ isn't getting the judge off the case anytime soon; it's a discretionary issue, the judge is highly unlikely to do it himself, and there's nothing that I've seen to support an intermediate appellate conclusion to the contrary.
So, in the interim, the judge did something eminently fair. The judge basically assigned counsel to the government to ensure that the government's abdication of the case is motivated by legal considerations, not by political calculations.
Finally, this isn't about the fairness of the adjudicatory process. Flynn had a chance to fight the case. He lost some pre-trial motions from what I can tell (Brady issues, specifically), and then chose not to, in spite of what you characterize as the weakness of the matter. This kind of thing happens all the time. There was nothing wrong with the adjudication of the matter. Whether there was an overzealous prosecution is a different question. And, because the judge obviously doesn't trust Barr here (with good reason, from what I've observed), he assigned an amicus to explore the issue. It's an obviously reasoned and balanced approach, and we'll see what happens from here.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Doc said:
Did you know that this same judge back in 2009 granted Holder's request to dismiss a case against Repub Senator Ted Stevens? So this along with Barry pardoning Cartwright reveal just how hypocritical these guys are. Trump should just pardon Flynn already and be done with it.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/11/eric-holder-stevens-case-underline-hypocrisy-obama/
Were the circumstances the same in the Stevens matter?
-
28 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
I wonder if he actually went out for interviews and press conference and just screamed and spit while waving his arms like a lunatic (I know, it seems like he does that now) how low his approval would go. 35%?
And the arguments the people here would make: You are making fun of his stuttering! He's just misunderstood! You are just not smart enough to understand his great words! ?
Hey, whatever floats your boat. Pass the stimulus and save the economy, don't pass it and Trump is right there with Herbert Hoover as worst of the worst one term presidents.
He could go out there and speak in tongues and 1/3 of the populace would still support the guy because he's not Hillary Clinton. It's pathetic.
-
2
-
DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
I looked at the report and it appears that there are a lot of redactions - some for personal privacy, some for investigative techniques, and some for grand jury evidence. Bottom line: GJ material appears to have been included in the report, and the public has not seen an unredacted copy of the report. BillStime, 1, Washed up Psycho, 0.