Full pardon for Flynn may be imminent

[Paul_Thomson]

@Paul_Thomson

But Schumer is a dolt and is not in charge. His

No. You missed it.

[WuWei]

No, you missed it. Schumer didn’t threaten Trump, he warned him.

You think ■■■■ head Strozk doesn’t scare the hell out of pols on both sides of the aisle?

[WuWei]

So in the recently release documents, Clapper said the Russians thought Trump would be easier to deal with than he is?

What happened to Putin’s Bitch?

[WildRose]

Man you really left that one hanging out over the plate and it’s almost worth a TO… .

[Paul_Thomson]

@WuWei

Never happen. The Machine doesn’t punish itself. Remember what Schumer said about Trump going after the alphabets?

Actually, the machine was originally designed to punish itself. It’s been broken for a while. Trump is here to fix it so it does punish itself for law breaking.

[markdido]

Things could be getting sticky for Obama admin officials in the near future.

Any Obama officials involved in Flynn 'unmasking' declassified: Source

[WildRose]

Getting stick? Thick? Sticky?

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

Ok.

Shouldn’t be long now.

Actually, looks like its gonna be a little while. Sullivan is inviting amicus briefs.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@WuWei

Ok.

Shouldn’t be long now.

Actually, looks like its gonna be a little while. Sullivan is inviting amicus briefs.

Yeah, I saw that. He’s tripping over his ego. Like most of them do.

[Snow96]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Actually, looks like its gonna be a little while. Sullivan is inviting amicus briefs.

Something he flat out refused to do when it ~MIGHT~ help Flynn. Now he’s accepting them when it might not help him.

Things that make you go hmmmmm

[TheDoctorIsIn]

I’m not following your theory.

Any amici who wanted to file briefs before are welcome to do so now, but I think you’re vastly overestimating the importance of amici briefs.

[TommyLucchese]

@WuWei

Yeah, I saw that. He’s tripping over his ego. Like most of them do.

Well except Brett Kavanaugh. He’s dreamy.

[Snow96]

@TheDoctorIsIn

Any amici who wanted to file briefs before are welcome to do so now, but I think you’re vastly overestimating the importance of amici briefs.

Sullivan’s minute order indicated that an upcoming scheduling order would clarify the parameters of who specifically could submit the amicus briefs,

Uhhh no. The judge has indicated that when he issued the ruling for amici briefs, they WILL be limited to who he says can submit them and probably the what they cover.

“Judge Sullivan, who denied leave to file amicus briefs when he knew third parties would have spoken favorably of Flynn, now solicits briefs critical of Flynn,” independent journalist Michael Cernovich wrote on Twitter Tuesday evening. “This is a violation of the judicial oath and applicable ethical rules. We will be filing a complaint against Sullivan. … [He] is acting as a politician, not a judge.”

Is that equal justice @TheDoctorIsIn?

Flynn judge to allow 'amicus' submissions, delaying immediate resolution and...

If they are not vastly important – then why deny them earlier and decide to take them now expecially when the judge said when they defense was asking for them in favor of Flynn . .

Sullivan had previously held that “[o]ptions exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest, but the Court’s docket is not an available option.”

Does this mean that no “options exist for a private citizen to express his views about matters of public interest” now?

[WildRose]

This seems way out of Character for Sullivan, he needs to rethink this in a hurry.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Snow96

Uhhh no. The judge has indicated that when he issued the ruling for amici briefs, they WILL be limited to who he says can submit them and probably the what they cover.

Yes. That’s the point of amici briefs.

They’re not a “right” - and they’re rarely allowed in criminal trials.

I imagine Sullivan is accepting them now because he is facing a question of law he doesn’t have a clear answer to.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

I’m not following your theory.

Any amici who wanted to file briefs before are welcome to do so now, but I think you’re vastly overestimating the importance of amici briefs.

His point is Sullivan refused them earlier.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Snow96

Uhhh no. The judge has indicated that when he issued the ruling for amici briefs, they WILL be limited to who he says can submit them and probably the what they cover.

Yes. That’s the point of amici briefs.

They’re not a “right” - and they’re rarely allowed in criminal trials.

I imagine Sullivan is accepting them now because he is facing a question of law he doesn’t have a clear answer to.

I disagree. He’s accepting them to drag this out.

He’s forgetting the objective.

[Snow96]

@TheDoctorIsIn

I imagine Sullivan is accepting them now because he is facing a question of law he doesn’t have a clear answer to.

And how are non judges, no legal experts going to help him decide? Defence AND prosecution saying the gulty plea should be allowed to be withdrawn so the charges can be dropped. Yet he is looking for reason to say – sorry, your both WRONG and this is how it’s going down.

Consistancy says if others have ways outside the court to get their views know then, they have those same avenues now.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Snow96

And how are non judges, no legal experts going to help him decide? Defence AND prosecution saying the gulty plea should be allowed to be withdrawn so the charges can be dropped. Yet he is looking for reason to say – sorry, your both WRONG and this is how it’s going down.

Well, that’s the thing you were just complaining about - why amici are so strictly gate-kept.

Because only people with legal expertise (particularly in that specific field) will be allowed to file.

As for the what the defense and the prosecutors want - the Judge doesn’t answer to them. He doesn’t have to do what they ask, even if they agree.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

I was just browsing through the docket, and I checked those citations in Powell’s brief regarding those previously rejected amici briefs - and this one is my favorite. The bolded part is the title of the “filing” - and added by me. Typos from the original.

LEAVE TO FILE DENIED- Mankind’s Death Certificate was Signed on October 12, 2050 with not so much asa Whimper. as to MICHAEL T. FLYNN. “Leave to File Denied” by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/19/2018. This document is unavailable as the Court denied its filing. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 3/19/2018. (hsj) (Entered: 03/27/2018)