Now, about that hearing, which you can hear here Audio of DC Circuit Court Oral Arguments – Judge Emmet Sullivan -vs- Michael Flynn, from Sundance, from SundanceTHREAD: W/ lots of folks tuning in tomorrow to listen to the oral argument in the Flynn case, I thought I'd give a primer for what to expect. (Turning off comments until the end to keep the thread uninterrupted.) So, remember this is not an appeal.— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) June 11, 2020
Sundance, DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kupec Discusses DOJ Position on Flynn Case…
And how did it go? Ace, Two of the Judges in Sullivan Hearing Appear Relunctant to Stop the Rogue Judge's Calvinball Inquisition "The judges are the ones appointed by Obama (of course) and George H.W. Bush (also of course).". Sundance elaborates in Understanding Likelihood of DC Circuit Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus….
After listening to oral arguments in the DC Circuit Court for the Flynn petition for a Writ of Mandamus (appeals court intervention); it seems very likely the panel of three judges will deny the Flynn defense and DOJ request, here’s why….But "shipwreckedcrew" who in the previous piece admitted to being a former prosecutor, and I think is a better legal analyist than sundance, says not to worry about the probing questions and disagrees, Analysis of Oral Argument in the Circuit Court of Appeals in Flynn Case — Flynn Wins
For the past decade CTH has been accurate in predicting these judicial events based on one overarching principle. The issues at hand are political arguments being made in the sphere of legal proceedings. As a consequence, all judicial proceeding continue -regardless of legal merit- until such time as they run into the final barrier of legal standing.
This same principle played out in the George Zimmerman case (Trayvon Martin). This same principle played out in the Baltimore Six case (Freddie Gray). A modified version of this principle played out in the Darren Wilson case (Michael Brown).
In the assembly of each prosecution there was no legal basis for the underlying case to proceed into the judicial branch, and yet those proceedings continued. They continued because the case travel is based on politics, not law. This is the essence of Lawfare. . . .
Finally, I think Judge Henderson showed her cards with her very last question posed to Dep. SG Wall at the very end of the hearing. She prefaced the question by saying that she wanted to ask about something not raised in the briefing — which is unusual. She said that it seems to her that the “misconduct” by DOJ that is reflected in the motion seemed to be misconduct in the past — which I took to mean a reference to the SCO’s handling of the matter. She said that when that is the case, is there any purpose served by the Art. III judiciary standing in the way of the Art. II Executive’s effort to “self-correct” its own prior misconduct.I'll buy him that macchitato if he's right. But wait, that's not all! The WaPoo whines that Senate panel approves dozens of subpoenas targeting origins of Russia probe, a real list of dirty laundry.
I tweeted that that moment “There it is. HENDERSON GETS TO IT AT THE VERY END.”
I think she set up two moves on her part with her statements and her questions, and not wanting to be needlessly critical of Judge Sullivan. She hid her play by holding this to the very last moment. As the most senior Judge in a 2-1 decision with Rao, she will write the opinion. I think she’s going to say the standard to guide a district court’s Rule 48(a) inquiry is not defined, and Fokker Services deals directly only with Speedy Trial Act motions so it is only instructive, not binding. She’s going to then point to a lot of case law that says “In no circumstance is it appropriate for a district judge to substitute his view of the “public interest” for the view expressed by the Executive in ruling on Rule 48(a) motions. There is other case law saying that the government need not “prove” its justification to the satisfaction of the court. The limit on whatever discretion is given to a judge by the “leave of court” language is most restrictive when dealing with unopposed motions since the only two parties to the proceeding are asking for the same thing. I think she’ll say when the Exec. sets forth in the papers that the motion is intended as a form of “self-correction” for prior investigative or prosecutorial errors, there are little or no grounds for an Article III court to place any other considerations ahead of that expression of the “public interest” or “interest of justice” when set forth in that manner. I think she’s going to say that Sullivan is entitled to conduct an inquiry, but the inquiry is limited to the record as it now exists — the history of the case as reflected in the Court’s file, and the justification set forth by the government in the motion. Beyond that, he’s not allowed to inquire further and “get behind” the decision-making process in the same manner as might be justified by an allegation of a constitutional violation or other “manifest injustice,” which are the only grounds upon which a district court may deny an otherwise properly justified Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss.
With all that, and $8 dollars, you can get a Caramel Macchiato at Starbucks.
Republicans on the committee approved the subpoenas over the objections of Democrats, who denounced the investigation as both a partisan affair aimed at aiding Trump’s reelection campaign and a distraction from more pressing work for the committee — such as addressing the national crisis over racism in policing sparked by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.Democrats even had a fit:
But Democrats launched a broader attack on the political implications of Graham’s probe. The subpoena targets dozens of officials, including several political appointees of former president Barack Obama — such as his attorney general, Loretta E. Lynch; his deputy attorney general, Sally Yates; his FBI director, James B. Comey; and his chief of staff, Denis McDonough.
Those subpoenas, they said, would do little more than offer fodder to Trump allies in the hothouse of his reelection campaign, while ignoring ample evidence of suspicious activity justifying the federal scrutiny that occurred.
Democratic senators seized on the case of former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, who twice pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his conversations with the Russian ambassador. He later sought — with Trump’s support — to reverse that plea, and the Justice Department moved to drop the charged earlier this month.Fox, Senate Judiciary authorizes subpoenas for Obama officials amid Russia probe review "McCabe...Comey...their day is coming," Graham said." Chuck Ross at Da Caller, Senate Panel Approves Dozens Of Subpoenas In Probe Of Trump Campaign Surveillance
Graham said Sunday that he plans to ask Comey and McCabe whether they were aware that the primary source for Christopher Steele disavowed allegations in the dossier during a January 2017 interview with two FBI agents and two Justice Department attorneys.From sundance, Devin Nunes Discusses FBI Top Lawyer Dana Boente as “a Witness to FBI Corruption”…
Matt Vespa at Town Hall, So, Those are the Details the FBI Omitted in Russian Collusion Intelligence Report
The bureau’s credibility has been shot, stabbed, and set on fire post-2016 election. The counterintelligence probe they launched in 2016 to look into Russian collusion was a partisan witch hunt. I mean, if you want to talk about omissions, just look at the papers disgraced ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok signed off on to launch Crossfire Hurricane, the non-spying spying operation against the Trump campaign.
Former FBI intelligence official Kevin Brock wrote, “What this FBI document clearly establishes is that Crossfire Hurricane was an illicit, made-up investigation lacking a shred of justifying predication, sprung from the mind of someone who despised Donald Trump, and then blessed by inexperienced leadership at the highest levels who harbored their own now well-established biases.”
More from Chuck Ross at Da Caller, Mueller Witness Said Manafort Might Have Given Russian Oligarch’s Money To Pro-McCain Group.NEW: Declassified Intelligence Report Shows FBI Withheld Key Details About Steele Dossier https://t.co/cs31TlEy0G— Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) June 11, 2020
Rick Gates, who served as deputy chairman of the Trump campaign, told the special counsel’s team in August 2018 that his former boss, Paul Manafort, might have contributed to a pro-McCain dark money group from a shell company he controlled that was funded by a Russian oligarch with close ties to Putin.St. John? Linked at Pirate's Cove in the weekly Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup and links. Linked by EBL in Satyagraha 🎭, Camille and Kennerly Harp: Beneath the Midnight Sun, Akhnaten 🎭, La Forza del Destino 🎭, Scientologist Danny Materson Charged With Rape, Iphigénie en Tauride 🎭, Bourbon Babes 🥃🙋🏻♀️, Bloomsday Babes, Semiramide 🎭 and Armida 🎭.
Gates told prosecutors he believed Manafort contributed to the group Americans for Patriotism through his Cyprus-based shell company, LOAV, Ltd. He also said that Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate, funded LOAV.
“Gates stated he heard that a Paul Manafort controlled Cypriot account, LOAV, contributed money to the 501c(4), and the funds in the LOAV account were from Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch,” read the FBI notes of Gates’s Feb. 28, 2018, interview.