Fogbow

I vote Jimmy Down the Hall Whose Name is Klayman.

Foggy wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:49 pm

Outstanding, FRP. Excellent and detailed, with really expert commentary added. Wow, can't wait to find out what limits they put on Sullivan for a future hearing, because Sullivan has a temper and might be a little annoyed with Powell and the DOJ by this point.

Thanks, bossman.

bob wrote: ↑

Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:43 pm

Thanks for the commentary.

Did Katsas say anything notable? (I don't recall anything about him recusing.)

No, Katsas has been recused on the Flynn thing from the beginning.

Oh, gosh. Looking back, I hadn't realize I gobbled up 4 whole pages of this thread. My sincere apologies if I overloaded the forum.

Case submitted, court adjourned. My hunch is that the decision will break down on partisan lines 7-3 with one of Srinivasan, Garland, or Pillard writing the majority opinion. Rao, Henderson, and Griffith will dissent. Millett will write an impassioned concurrence about how this better not ever happe...

Wall gives boilerplate about "heads we win, tails we win" before spending a lot more time on what guidance the circuit court should give the court below. Tells you all you need to know.

Powell asks for the dismissal entered instanter. Lol not going to happen.

Powell and Wall get 2 minutes uninterrupted rebuttal "in light of the lateness of the hour." Boy, doesn't that describe today in so many ways? Powell unloads a screed about how Michael Flynn has been abused and persecuted. That Wall is going to follow up and agree on behalf of the government is fuck...

Judge Millett's hypothetical about an incarcerated and exonerated defendant having their release delayed by an intransigent judge refusing to dismiss a case is really getting annoying.

The only judge I'm really not sure about yet is Griffith. He may go either way.

Judge Rodgers asks a long rambling question that closes with a query about what instructions the court below should be given.

Judge Henderson also preparing her dissent with a screed about how Judge Sullivan has no standing to petition for rehearing en banc . I take her and Rao choosing to spend precious time on this point to be a concession that they are going to lose on the merits. We're three hours in and they're just n...

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I choose to belief that Rao is actually reading a script provided to her by Bill Barr. She has wholly adopted Powell and Wall's presupposition that Judge Sullivan has his mind set against them. (As a defense lawyer who frequently deals with judges that are more ...

Rao is fighting and dying on the hill of whether Judge Sullivan had standing to file the petition for rehearing en banc. That's a strange choice, given that a majority of the circuit already voted to grant the rehearing.

Rao starts with a homily about how unlimited discretion by the Executive Branch serves to protect individual criminal defendants.

I'm not joking.

Wilkins also wants to get a sense of how to limit whatever hearing Sullivan is going to have. Wilkinson agrees that courts generally can't look into motives behind discretionary decisions.

Here comes Rao. *steels self*

I would take Judge Millett's point about delay and deprivation of Flynn's liberty more seriously if Flynn hadn't availed himself of absolutely every opportunity to delay proceedings in this case for the last three years.

Millett raising the point that if this were happening to an incarcerated defendant, it would be a tremendous injustice.

Wilkinson reminding everyone that Sullivan may yet dismiss the case. Powell and Wall take it as a foregone conclusion that he will not, yet Powell and Wall are the ones arguing Sullivan is biased. Projection much? Pillard trying to get an idea of what the process would be in the event Sullivan denie...

Frankly, there's far too much tapdancing around the correct phrase, which is "fraud on the court." Everyone knows it, no one wants to say it.

Wilkinson got disconnected. Back on now. (I blame Bill Barr for this as well.)

Wilkinson is capitalizing on Millett and Pillard's "power and integrity of the court" arguments.

There's also some major homoeroticism in that ad. Or am I, a straight person, seeing something that isn't there?

And someone on the call just got disconnected.

Judge Griffith asks a tremendously stupid question, basically asking whether Judge Sullivan will rule a particular way. Wilkinson sounds as confused as I am, and responds that Judge Sullivan hasn't ruled yet. If she knew how he was going to rule ahead of time, Powell and Wall's grandstanding about b...

Garland and Wilkinson are systematically knocking down Wall's parade of horribles.