US-SSR wrote:MGTOWia wrote:The only "baseless arguments" are the ones advanced by Sullivan's mouthpieces. Which boil down to, "Orange Man Bad. Defendant Bad. I want to make him pay. Don't you stop me."
But we'll see whose arguments are "baseless" soon enough.
Yes, I imagine we will.
The brief represents a remarkable new position by the Trump Justice Department: The doors of federal courthouses should be closed to hearing arguments other than those advanced by the department itself, and federal judges may not even inquire into whether the administration has acted improperly...
It may be inconvenient, at least in Trump’s view, for the administration to have protesters at the White House. And it may be inconvenient, at least in the Trump Justice Department’s view, to have its extraordinary action on behalf of one of the president’s allies scrutinized by a federal court. But that is what our system of free speech and an independent judiciary entails — whether Trump and his enablers like it or not.
Wow, article starts with such pompous bullshit, that it couldn't lick Biden's balls hard enough, no wonder you left this part out:
The Trump administration’s authoritarian behavior on the streets is being matched by its authoritarian positions in the federal courts. On Monday, as the administration used military force to push peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square, administration lawyers filed an astonishing brief in the federal appeals court down the street, urging the court to order the trial judge to dismiss the case against Michael Flynn.
Was President Trump saying that the army should disperse the protesters unconstitutional? Yep. Did it have any relationship to the Flynn case? Nope. Did it start after the Flynn case? Yes, yes it did. If the following individuals, namely:
Joshua A. Geltzer and Neal K. Katyal are law professors at Georgetown University Law Center. Jennifer Taub is a professor at Vermont Law School. Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard.
want to be remembers as cheap Democratic propagandists, then:
The initial brief, that led to General Flynn changing his plea, filed by General Flynn's attorney, was filed way before the protests even started. Instead, the quartet of formerly respected legal jurists decided to mislead the public as to the order of events:
On Monday, as the administration used military force to push peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square, administration lawyers filed an astonishing brief in the federal appeals court down the street
Let's look at the actual dates, the actual reality, not the one imagined by Geltzer, Katyal, Taub, and Tribe, with one thing in mind: George Floyd was murdered on May 25th, 2020. The protests started as a result of Floyd's unnecessary and tragic death, meaning that they started on or after May 25th, 2020. Let's take a look at the Flynn timetable:
https://justthenews.com/accountability/ ... hael-flynnMay 29, 2019: Mueller declares the investigation complete.
June 6, 2019: Michael Flynn fired his legal team while awaiting sentencing.
June 12, 2019: Flynn hires a Mueller critic to represent him – attorney Sidney Powell.
August 2019: Powell files a motion stating Flynn’s case is not ready for sentencing. She also claimed that she was being prevented from reviewing classified material needed for the case, such as phone call recordings and transcripts.
October 2019: Justice Department attorneys respond, saying Powell’s information requests from the government were “either irrelevant or seek information that has already been provided.”
Oct 25, 2019: Powell filed a motion to “dismiss the entire prosecution for outrageous government misconduct.”
November 2019: Sullivan postpones Flynn’s sentencing until report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz on the Russia probe is released.
December 2019: Judge Sullivan sets a Jan. 28 sentencing date. He also rejects Flynn’s legal team’s request for important information that may have been withheld by the FBI. Sullivan claimed that Flynn still needed to prove the information he was requesting was actually in his favor.
Jan 7, 2020: Justice Dept. recommends up to six months in prison for Flynn.
Jan 14, 2020: Flynn files motion to withdraw his original guilty plea for lying to the FBI.
Jan 16, 2020: Sullivan pushes Flynn’s sentencing back to Feb. 27.
Feb 9, 2020: Federal prosecutors suggest delaying more deadlines, saying Flynn’s former lawyers should testify as well.
Feb 10, 2020: Sullivan indefinitely postpones Flynn’s sentencing.
March 15, 2020: Trump said he’s “strongly considering” pardoning Flynn after the Justice Department misplaced records from Flynn’s interview with the FBI agents back in 2017
April 29, 2020: New internal FBI documents were unsealed, showing that top FBI officials were discussing whether they were interviewing Flynn with the “goal” or intent to catch him in a lie, so he could be fired.
They discussed making him admit to breaking an obscure statute called the Logan Act, which had never been used in criminal prosecution before. The Logan Act prevents people from falsely claiming to represent the US government abroad.
May 7, 2020: The Justice Department dropped Flynn’s case, saying “The Government has determined, pursuant to the Principles of Federal Prosecution and based on an extensive review and careful consideration of the circumstances, that continued prosecution of this case would not serve the interests of justice.”
I'm not sure if the above mentioned quartet of Geltzer, Katyal, Taub, and Tribe are aware of this, but May 7th actually comes before May 25th. Way before. As a result writing that, and I quote:
On Monday, as the administration used military force to push peaceful protesters out of Lafayette Square, administration lawyers filed an astonishing brief in the federal appeals court down the street and thus conflating the two is bullshit that divides the nation, conflates two completely different events, and disgraces the legal profession. I don't claim to know the law, outside of the basics; I'm not a lawyer. But I know facts. And I know when someone's lying to me. When someone's claiming that May 7th = May 25th, they're lying. Pure and simple. No wonder you kept that paragraph out of your quote. What's the point of reading the rest of it, if the first paragraph is intentionally deceptive?