Below is my column in USA Today on the D.C. Circuit ordering Judge Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. After this column ran, new evidence emerged that further undermined the FBI and the targeting of Flynn, as discussed in another recent column. Notes from fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok show that former FBI Director James Comey told President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden that Flynn’s call to the Russian diplomat “appear legit.” Nevertheless, Biden (who denied having anything to do with the case) is noted as raising the idea of a charge under the facially unconstitutional Logan Act, a law that has never been used successfully to charge a single person since the beginning of this Republic. Comey of course was the one who later bragged that he “probably wouldn’t have … gotten away with it” in other administrations, but he sent “a couple guys over” to question Flynn, who was settling into his new office as national security adviser. We now know that, when Comey broke protocols and sent the agents, he thought the calls were legitimate and that agents wanted to dismiss the investigation in December for lack of evidence. They were prevented from doing so as Strzok, Biden, and others discussed other crimes, any crime, to nail Flynn just before the start of the Trump Administration.
If all of that seems “illegitimate” and “irregular,” it pales in comparison to how two judges on the D.C. panel viewed the handling of the Flynn case by Judge Emmet Sullivan. It seems that everyone from the President to the Vice President to the FBI Director to ultimately the federal judge have engaged in a dangerous form of improvisational law when it came to Michael Flynn. That will now hopefully end though many questions still remain.
It is possible for Judge Sullivan to appeal, though the upcoming hearing on Flynn has been removed from the docket.
Here is the column:
The dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn sent shock waves across Washington, including Congress which was hours away from a hearing addressing the case. Any appellate decision taking unprecedented measures to stop “irreparable harms” and “irregular” conduct is newsworthy. However, those admonishments were not describing Flynn’s conduct but that of his trial judge, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. The D.C. Circuit panel took the exceptionally rare step of ordering Sullivan to stop further proceedings and dismiss the case to avoid further damage caused by his prior orders.
The case should have been dismissed
One month ago, I wrote a column criticizing the handling of the Flynn case by Judge Sullivan after the government moved to dismiss its own prosecution.
The law in this case is clear and the case should have been dismissed. Instead, Sullivan took the extraordinary action of appointing a retired judge, John Gleeson, to argue positions that neither of the actual parties supported. Gleeson not only had publicly denounced the administration over its handling of the case but, as a judge, was reversed for “irregular” conduct in usurping the authority of prosecutors. In addition, Sullivan suggested that he might charge Flynn with perjury for alleging that he was wrongly charged despite the support of the Justice Department in finding abuses in his case.
Criticizing Sullivan, who I have appeared before for years as counsel and previously complimented for his demeanor, was not popular. Legal analysts in The Washington Post, CNN and other outlets insisted that his actions were entirely appropriate and justified. Yet, another letter from “former prosecutors” was given unquestioning media coverage to show that Sullivan should deny the motion in the case.
In an opinion piece, UCLA Law Professor and former U.S. Attorney under Bill Clinton, Harry Litman even explained how Sullivan could “make trouble” for the Trump administration in these hearings. Litman insisted that I was “a very lonely voice in the wilderness” of academia in contesting the use of an outside lawyer to make arguments in a criminal trial case that neither the defense nor the prosecution supported.
The wilderness now appears to include at least two other voices from the D.C. Circuit. The panel specifically denounced the “irregular” use of Gleeson and his hyperbolic arguments in the case. Gleeson suggested that the court should actually send Flynn to jail despite prosecutors raising evidence of misconduct and abuse as the basis for dismissal. He also argued that, rather than give Flynn a trial on a new charge from Sullivan of perjury, Flynn should just be sentenced in light of such perjury as part of his prior non-perjury charge.
Even for those of us who believed that Sullivan was operating well outside of the navigational beacons for a court in such case, the decision was breathtaking. Most of us expected that the appellate court would remand the case to allow Sullivan a face-saving hearing with an inevitable order to dismiss. The panel, however, clearly had little trust in the plans for this hearing or any true judicial purpose. Indeed, it may have been convinced that the primary purpose was indeed to “make trouble” for the administration.
As some of us wrote previously, the appellate court was particularly alarmed by the implications of Sullivan’s orders, including noting that the “invitation to members of the general public to appear as amici…” The panel said that such an invitation by Sullivan “suggests anything but a circumscribed review.” Moreover, it noted that the Justice Department had submitted troubling evidence of possible misconduct. And that “each of our three coequal branches should be encouraged to self-correct when it errs.”
Gleeson, wrong appointment
The greatest irony is that Sullivan’s unwise decision to appoint Gleeson to make the case was perhaps too successful. Gleeson ultimately proved not the case against Flynn but against Sullivan. In reviewing Gleeson’s brief, the panel declared “we need not guess if this irregular and searching scrutiny will continue; it already has.” The panel noted that Sullivan’s appointed counsel “relied on news stories, tweets, and other facts outside the record to contrast the government’s grounds for dismissal here with its rationales for prosecution in other cases.”
The panel was also aware of past concerns raised in the case, including the rather bizarre first sentencing hearing held in December 2018. In that hearing, Sullivan suggested that Flynn might be guilty of treason in a case involving comparatively minor charges of false statements to federal investigators. Sullivan dramatically used the flag in the courtroom as a prop and accused Flynn of being “an unregistered agent of a foreign country while serving as the national security adviser to the president of the United States. Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for. Arguably, you sold your country out.” (He later apologized for his comments.)
The irony, however, is that Sullivan proved the best thing that could have happened to Flynn. After that unnerving exchange, Sullivan asked if Flynn still wanted him to sentence him or wait. He indicated that he might go substantially beyond what Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team had demanded. Flynn wisely decided to wait. The resulting delay allowed the damaging evidence from his case to be review and released. Had Sullivan simply sentenced Flynn last December, it would have been much more difficult for Flynn to have raised these issues.
Sullivan then handed down his novel orders including appointing his own counsel to argue for prosecution against the actual prosecutors.
This record proved too much for the appellate court. Rather than order Sullivan off the case, it decided to order Sullivan to dismiss the case. Short of an order of actual recusal of a judge, a mandamus order is the most stinging indictment of the handling of a case that can come from an appellate court.
The ruling in this case is unlikely to force any real circumspection by legal analysts or the media in the prior coverage. Nuanced legal questions quickly evaporate in this age of rage. Conflicting case law is dismissed in favor of the clarity demanded by echo journalism. The law however brings its own clarity and the message of this opinion could not be clearer. Sullivan’s actions in the case did not spell “trouble” for the Trump administration, but rather, they spelled trouble for the administration of justice in our court system.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
339 thoughts on ““Irreparable Harm”: How The Flynn Case Became A Dangerous Game Of Legal Improvisation”
Breathlessly waiting for tomorrows blog from Turley denouncing White Power cheer leading from the dear leader.
Your pay has been cut a few rubles.
I dont pay for such puerile troll speak
Election Postponement – Not A Vote By Survey Monkey
President Trump must postpone the November election due to COVID-19, understanding that a fair and equitable election is impossible and that all other economic and social activities have been modified and/or suspended for reasons of the pandemic. To conduct a legitimate election, voters must appear and have their identity confirmed at a polling place. Democrats have already cancelled their convention. Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are promoting “vote-by-mail” knowing that they will be afforded an historic opportunity to manipulate and defraud the vulnerable voting system. Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs), in order to seize unfair advantages, absurdly propose that America surrender its self-governance to Survey Monkey. Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) employed our South Korean “allies,” K-pop, to enlist and encourage Tik Tok users to crash President Trump’s Tulsa rally. Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) “harvested” ballots to conquer Orange County, CA and other districts. Lincoln won 1860 with 38.9% and 1864 with brute military force. Joe Kennedy erased a Nixon victory and bought the presidency for JFK through Mob purchases in Chicago. Is it conceivable that the communists will not maximally corrupt and manipulate “vote-by-mail” to obtain a November victory? Of course they will. To communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs), the ends justify the means. No ethic, regulation, law, promise, duty or point of honor will ever prevent them from attempting to steal power. The essence of the Republic must be preserved at all costs, as Lincoln would say. President Trump must postpone the election due to COVID-19 until such time as the pandemic is in sufficient and quantifiable decline.
Conditions of fair weather, health, peace and tranquility must be presumed for the holding of elections. The danger to the public of the chaos of civil unrest and a pandemic must require postponement of elections to preserve their accuracy. President Obama issued an executive order to override the authority of Congress with regard to immigration and DACA. President Trump must act similarly under current inimical and adverse conditions to preserve the integrity of U.S. elections.
George, trump can’t postpone the election. He has no authority to do so.
Besides multiple courts in republican states noted that elections cannot be postponed including the Supreme Court.
Congress may postpone or “…make or alter such regulations…” as those establishing the vote in the U.S.
As precedent, Lincoln and Obama usurped the power of Congress ruled in their stead by executive order.
Lincoln’s criminal acts are myriad and known whereas Obama most recently usurped the power of Congress to unconstitutionally legislate immigration policy.
The Supreme Court did not strike down Lincoln or Obama; in fact supported them.
“For extreme diseases, extreme methods of cure, as to restriction, are most suitable.”
America exists in a condition of devastating pandemic and violent civil unrest.
Voting and social gathering, assembly, are restricted and prohibited.
President Trump may rest on the precedents of Lincoln and Obama, usurp the power of Congress and postpone the election due to aggravated and deteriorating national circumstances and an intractable national condition.
If the DOJ refuses to prosecute, can they be forced to?
No they can’ be so “forced.” That’s why it’s all over. The home team has left the court and the umpire needs to tell the flunkies to turn off the clock and the lights in the gym and everyone go home now. This one is now at DUH levels of ignorance.
There is an existing guilty plea. No further prosecution is required.
He moved to withdraw the plea. Yes a person has a right to try and withdraw a plea. Even a white guy and former general has rights.
Government dropped case. It’s over.
Then there should be a hearing for the withdrawal plea..Until then, he’s guilty.
Home team left the court dude. It’s over. Umpire needs to cut off the lights and move on.
The game was over in 2018 except for the official score and that’s the umpire’s job. Right now Flynn is guilty and all that remains is his sentencing.
Mixed metaphors! Ha. Umpires>> baseball. The court>> basketball, a game played under the referee’s domain.
Flynn’s lawyers withdrew his motion to withdraw his guilty plea: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6234142/199/united-states-v-flynn/ Keep up with the details of the case.
And no, it’s not over yet, as we don’t know whether Sullivan will dismiss the case or if it will be reheard / appealed.
IIRC, you objected to the use of torture for enemy combatants that coerced guilty pleas. But for some sinister reason, you favor techniques used to coerce a guilty plea from an American, 33 year decorated veteran, who had the audacity of serving a President you don’t support. Your citizenship should be revoked and you should be sent packing to whatever $hithole country that doesn’t care about the rights of it’s citizens.
The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have proven that they can get away with anything even in broad daylight. The Deep Deep State, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Chinese lead global communism (Hunter got a $1.5 billion contract), increases its control and manipulation when “the inmates take over the asylum” and confusion holds sway.
The affirmative action project, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, is playing for time and conducting a blocking action in defense of Barack Obama who is irrefutably guilty of the capital offense of literal treason through his conduct of the Obama Coup D’etat in America against the U.S. Constitution and the duly elected administration of President Donald J. Trump.
The Deep Deep State, in the person of former FBI Director James Comey, protected Obama by not prosecuting the eminently guilty Hillary Clinton, for “…if Comey had prosecuted Hillary, Comey would have convicted Obama…,” in the paraphrased words of Andrew E. McCarthy, National Review. Comey spent 15 minutes irrefutably proving Hillary’s guilt then arbitrarily exonerated her on the spot.
William Barr remains to be recorded for history as a patriot or a traitor. He’s done nothing accretive thus far. One prays that the Deep Deep State has not subsumed John Durham and that Durham Road is not a corrupted dead end, in which case Durham will have become an accomplice, a co-conspirator. Say it ain’t so, John, please say it ain’t so!
Emmet Sullivan Road is a circuitous obfuscatory detour invoked for the purposes of deception.
All roads lead to Obama.
“We will stop him.”
– Peter Strzok to FBI paramour Lisa Page
“[Obama] wants to know everything we’re doing.”
– Lisa Page to FBI paramour Peter Strzok
The Obama Coup D’etat in America is the most egregious abuse of power and the most prodigious scandal in American political history.
The co-conspirators are:
Bill Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, Rosenstein, Mueller/Team, Andrew Weissmann,
James Comey, Christopher Wray, McCabe, Strozk, Page, Laycock, Kadzic,
Sally Yates, James Baker, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Priestap, Kortan, Campbell,
Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, Simpson, Joseph Mifsud,
Alexander Downer, Stefan “The Walrus” Halper, Azra Turk, Kerry, Hillary,
Huma, Mills, Brennan, Gina Haspel, Clapper, Lerner, Farkas, Power, Lynch,
Rice, Jarrett, Holder, Brazile, Sessions (patsy), Nadler, Schiff, Pelosi, Obama,
James E. Boasberg et al.
See a shrink. Seriously! I mean it with all sincerity. May you feel better.
Vlad – did seeing a shrink work for you? Seriously! I mean it with all sincerity. Did it make you feel better?
Yes. But do not count on it. For people like you, bleach may have already corroded brain beyond repair.
Vlad – ad hominems do not work on me.
Oh Paul…..dont ruin it for them. They would burn you alive if they could so be thankful all they can do is flame you
” bleach may have already corroded brain beyond repair.”
Paul, is Vlad confusing you with Hillary?
Allan – I just wonder if Vlad is speaking from personal experience?
Thanks for reading.
I stand corrected. Thank you very much. I rushed to judgement and misspelled led. For that, I apologize.
I do want you to know, however, that is the first mistake I ever made and will likely be the last.
They keep missing that the longer this drags on more and more and more exculpatory evidence will be released and embarrassing questions asked. For example: 1. Robert Muller had to know as ex dir of the FBI that the 302 was phony by the dates. 2. I G Horowitz noted that the CIA informed the FBI in SEPTEMBER 2016 etc etc etc.
Sunday Talks – Bartiromo Asks Navarro
White House Trade and Manufacturing Policy Advisor Peter Navarro appears with Maria Bartriomo on Sunday Morning Futures. Within the interview Ms. Bartiromo outlines all of the far-left policies, actions, riots, mayhem and very visible outcomes that are toxic to the general population…. and then asks Peter Navarro: “why would voters rather see their lives destroyed that re-elect President Trump.
Things would be so much better in the US if the news media was worthy of our trust and respect
All across the board, on every single issue the Mainstream News Media has failed the American people. They have gone way past failing to inform us on so many key issues, they are intentionally misinforming us. This has produced truly disastrous results, namely the recent rioting that rocked so many US cities and the Coronavirus lockdowns that have crippled the US economy and destroyed so many businesses.
The Mainstream News Media is more than deserving of the label Fake News, which I will use for the remainder of this article. They have completely thrown out all objectivity, and are now the propaganda arm of the Democrat party and the progressive side of the political spectrum. This article News Media Credibility Rating Falls to a New Low indirectly provides the proof of the bias, which reached an extreme level during the Obama Administration, only to be surpassed during the Trump Presidency.
bythebook (or whomever you are)– less than an hour ago, the bythebook I’ve read for some time posted this:
“The NYTs broke the story and the WSJ and WaPO have confirmed it. They all have sources inside the government – including the WH – and do not rush stories they are not confident in. Unlike Trump supporters, they take the truth and reporting accurately seriously.”
Either bythebook had a road to Damascus conversion in the space of 45 minutes or someone kidnapped him and stole his moniker. Should we ask the moderator to send out a BOLO? I miss him already.
This isnt the commenter known as ‘By The Book’. This commenter is known as ‘Crazed Idiot’ and he is exactly that; a disengenous loser desperate for attention.
Seth– I was hoping for the Damascus Road.
Black Republican Responds To Trump’s White Power Video
On Sunday morning Sen. Tim Scott (R), the only black Republican Senator, called on the president to take down his tweet.
“There’s no question: He should not have retweeted it; he should just take it down,” Scott said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” Asked if he was offended by Trump’s tweet, he responded: “we could play politics with it, or we can’t – I’m not going to.”
“I think it’s indefensible, we should take it down,” he added.
Edited From: “Trump Promotes Video Of A Supporter Saying ‘White Power’
Today’s Washington Post
Senator Scott, the Senate’s only Black Republican, was in the news this week as sponsor of the Republican’s Senate bill on Police Reform. Democrats rejected said bill saying it didnt go far enough. Yet some analysts feel that Scott’s bill could have been used as a starting point for a possible compromise bill.
In any event Trump’s Tweet totally undermined Senator Scott in his efforts as a Black Republican spokesperson. Instead of talking about said bill on the Sunday morning talk shows, Scott was forced to respond to Trump’s Tweet. This illustrates how Trump is absolutely toxic to every Republican.
Oh please. Trump deleted it as soon as he was informed. Pretty easy to understand that he didn’t see that part. But the story with Trump is ALWAYS interpreted in the worse possible light and then that interpretation is asserted as the most likely by the left/media. THAT is why stories like this are always what they talk about. This has been going on since he campaign.
Typical garbage from Paint Chips and the Washington Post.
Democrat history: Slave owners KKK refusal to pass Civil Rights laws, and today black killings by the thousands on the streets where Democrats are in control along with rioting and looting. What a wonderful organization to support (Sarc).
In a way it’s more important now for white people to wake up and be prepared to act in concert before we all get scalped or burnt out.
Trump will win or lose, who knows. We can vote for him but he’s not on the other end of a 911 call. And don’t forget the adage:
WHEN SECONDS COUNT, THE POLICE ARE MINUTES AWAY!~
, Republicans will generally bow scrape and apologize, but the black mobs will still want blood either way. And as we can see the Cavalry aint coming. We might as well be pioneers out here on the frontier and the Indians are testing to see if they can scalp us.
And in the long run let’s not forget the braves on the warpath have chiefs who send them out. Who are those chiefs, who are paying them, those are the leadership, they are the ones who deserve keen edged enmity
We need more chads now fast, by the tens of thousands. Bring it Chad! The pink golf shirt and khaki pants are the new “uniform” of today
Karen opens fire
sorry that’s an old story but i couldnt resist
Kurtz, what black mobs?
what black mobs? lol. you are hilarious
the ones burning stuff down, looting, arson, blocking streets, attacking police, etc. you may have been asleep the past 6 weeks but I could have sworn you been here posting every day!
oh wait i forgot: you guys have a new mantra: “peaceful protests” and “mostly peaceful protests” etc etc. just a few troublemakers out there, right? got it.
Kurtz, the fairly limited rioting and looting which occurred following the Floyd killing was either typically limited to black neighborhoods or were equal parts whites and blacks. I doubt anyone here was seriously threatened as white people by “black mobs” so your warnings border on paranoia. . In fact, the notable difference between these protests and riots and those occurring in our more violent past in the 60s and later in LA, etc. is that these have been pretty much all bi-racial with zero to little racial animosity expressed. Try to keep up with the times.
Without commenting on the racial angle the following is an interesting link up between protesters and looters that is condoned and exacerbated by the left.
Hey “peaceful protesters.” Get a clue. Cops cars don’t just stop and let you take them down by force.
The procedural mumbo jumbo will go on ad infinitum with lawyers. Turley is a lawyer. Turley could just as easily argue in the opposite direction. One thing he leaves out is that, regardless of the procedure, Flynn was questioned and did admit to lying. What about that? Somebody forgot to read him his rights? The other basis for letting Flynn off is that he was coerced, bullied, and tricked into admitting that he was lying. So a three star general with a lifetime on the spot in the military and experience in a government post of the President is that weak to have been ‘tricked, bullied, coerced’? Yup, sounds like a lawyer’s argument. Sounds like a Trump argument.
I don’t remember any Leftist/Democrats/Liberals answering this question:
I have asked before, if Joe Biden was being investigated for his Ukrainian funny business, was broke, and had to sell his house to pay his legal fees, and the Prosecutor said, “Plead guilty with no jail time, or we go after Hunter Biden full bore for drugs and money laundering!” – what do you think Biden would do??? What would most good parents do???
Why should anyone answer a question with a false and foolish analogy?
Flynn wasn’t simply investigated, he was charged with a crime. Biden hasn’t been charged with anything, nor do you say what crime your imaginary prosecutor is telling him to “plead guilty” to. Do tell: what crime are you alleging Biden committed?
You also imply that Flynn choosing to plead guilty protected his son, but Flynn’s lawyers stated “The government took pains not to give a promise to MTF [Michael T. Flynn] regarding Michael Jr.” And keep in mind that Flynn’s son was at legal risk because of work he did for Flynn’s own business; if Flynn was worried about his son, maybe he shouldn’t have employed his son for shady business.
“Why should anyone answer a question with a false and foolish analogy?”
Because YOU seem mentally incapable of accepting the fact that pressure was put on Flynn. If you worked in the legal field, you would understand this is a common thing. People cop to pleas all the time and are not guilty, BUT if there is NO JAIL TIME, it is sometimes the best option. Which you have been told over and over by me and others here who are lawyers. Yet, since it does not fit your Narrative, you ignore. Or, you are just too stupid to get. I think it is the former, which is not a compliment. I think liars are worse than morons.
LOL that (a) you can’t bring yourself to say what crime you’re alleging Biden committed, (b) you tell me things I already know, like “[some] People cop to pleas … and are not guilty” (I agree and have said so previously,, but just because some people do this doesn’t imply that Flynn is one of them), and (c) you pretend that the false and insulting claims you make about me are true (most of the rest of what you wrote, and it sadly reflects on you more than me).
The point being made is that Flynn saying he was bullied, coerced, forced in any way to plead guilty is beyond ludicrous. It’s Trump logic. ‘I was being sarcastic.’ If you actually believe this, Fromm, you have lost that last tad of credibility that has been hanging like a chard. Ya got nothing, on the left or the right.
Because YOU seem mentally incapable of accepting the fact that pressure was put on Flynn.
That is a story, but no evidence to support it. Flynn’s current lawyers are saying that neither Flynn or his son did anything wrong WRT FARA. And Flynn is saying he pled guilty to lying only because his lawyers and the prosecution hid from him the fact that the FBI agents were on the record saying that they believed Flynn was not lying.
Actually, Squeeky, I think Joe would throw Hunter under the bus in a heartbeat.
“I have asked before, if Joe Biden was being investigated for his Ukrainian funny business, was broke, and had to sell his house to pay his legal fees, and the Prosecutor said, “Plead guilty with no jail time, or we go after Hunter Biden full bore for drugs and money laundering!” – what do you think Biden would do??? What would most good parents do???”
i see you are a person who does not believe in justice. You believe that is how the US legal system always works.
well it does work that way if you are poor, broke and black. But if you can afford to spend millions on attorney fees then it never works like that. Not ever.
“So a three star general with a lifetime on the spot in the military and experience in a government post of the President is that weak to have been ‘tricked, bullied, coerced’?”
Yeah poor dummv Michael Flynn had no clue what was going on. That is the story he is now trying to sell
Fake News to the Nth Degree
“Building off the findings from their recent American Views: Trust, Media and Democracy report, Gallup and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation conducted a follow-up survey to probe more deeply into Americans’ views of bias, inaccuracy and misinformation in news reporting.
The web survey of 1,440 Gallup Panel members sought to quantify exactly how much problematic information people believe they encounter in traditional news media as well as on social media.
Overall, U.S. adults estimate that 62% of the news they read in newspapers, see on television or hear on the radio is biased. They think the news media mostly provide accurate information, but still estimate that 44% of what they see is inaccurate. And they believe that more than a third of the news they see in these channels is misinformation — false or inaccurate information that is presented as if it were true.
Americans are even more critical of the news they see on social media. They believe 80% of it is biased, 64% is inaccurate and 65% is misinformation”
Shocking. Utterly shocking!
Americans: Much Misinformation, Bias, Inaccuracy in News
JT ignores the question before the District Court panel which is whether Rule 48 requires the “leave of the court” – i.e., Judge Sullivan’s review of the motion to dismiss – in a case like this. According to those who wrote the Rule (in the 1940’s) with direct input from the contemporary SC (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3599674) the “leave of the court” is necessary for 2 possible reasons:
1. To protect the defendant from thinks like an attempt by the government to dismiss so they can recharge without double jeopardy.
2. To protect the court and our judicial system from a connected defendant being protected by a corrupt prosecutor. Most of the discussion around Rule 48 by that commission revolved around this possibility
2 above applies clearly and JT knows this. I emailed him the above link and in his next column on the issue he mentioned it in passing. e has no excuse for overlooking it, which by the way the majority did as well though they claimed to have answered all dissents by Wilkenson. He spoke to this issue and they didn’t answer.
This is a railroad by the President’s team, plain and simple. AG Barr’s concern with civil liberties is strictly limited to presidential cronies. For myself, I don’t demand any outcome, and especially Flynn doing time. I do demand an accounting of WTF is going on and a settling of the so far one sided presentation that the Trump team does not want looked into. What are they afraid of? Rule 48 demands “leave of the court” for a case like this and JT is the one damaging our institutions by trying to short circuit the court and the judge doing their duty.
Anxiously awaiting your commentary on Persian Rugs – another topic you know absolutely nothing about.
One of our ambulance chasers demonstrates his facility with the issues and the law.
The wife and I are looking for a Persian Rug.
Can you guide us?
Abdul – I suggest Iran in the springtime. 😉
The question you raised is fully addressed by the court. If you want to try and argue against that ruling, then do please so.
Rule 48 was addressed by both the majority and the dissent, and now we get to wait and see whether CADC chooses to rehear the case en banc, and if so, how they rule. No need to repeat Judge Wilkins’ argument against the majority here.
Why don’t YOU personally discuss the Majority’s holding on Rule 48, and what they got wrong IN YOUR OWN WORDS – citing cases to back up your position.
Plus, for God’s sake please learn the damn difference between persuasive and binding authority. Then explain it to your bud, btb. You are as bad as those stupid Two Citizen Parent Birthers hollering about Vattel to avoid discussing Wong Kim Ark.
“Why don’t YOU …” No thanks, I have no desire to waste my time satisfying your bizarre wish.
And LOL that you say “please learn the damn difference between persuasive and binding authority” when you don’t quote me saying anything conflating them.
Squeeky– Since BTB and Commit are so perfectly informed on the law I wonder why they didn’t submit their briefs [legal arguments, not your shorts guys] in the Flynn mess. They should call Sullivan and give their advice pro bono. I am sure he would love to hear from them.
TeeHee! Yeah, I wanna see ’em pull that unpublished law school article out and say, “Here Judge Sullivan! This’ll trump that Fokker Case!”
You dont want to see Book in briefs, do you?
Old man in his 70s/80s, makes love to his computer and humps his keyboard because his wife wont give him a piece of action. Gross
Just Say Nyet – there has just been a case filed in Federal Court in San Jose claiming that the thots on Twitch are addictive and have caused him to become a sex addict. The complaint comes complete with pictures and graphic descriptions.
Nyet– NO! I do not want to see Book in his briefs. Even less do I want to see him after he has submitted them to Sullivan.
I’ve posted this previously Squeaky. If you read the majority order, they don’t address this issue. From the dissent:
“In addition to being improper, the majority’s reliance on
the Rule 48(a) dicta from Fokker creates a split with our sister
Courts of Appeals. Fokker’s Rule 48(a) commentary fails to
take due cognizance of federal appellate authority establishing
that an important impetus behind the Supreme Court’s insertion
into Rule 48(a) of the “leave of court” requirement was the
protection of the public interest, not simply the prevention of
abuse of the defendant. See, e.g., In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773,
786–87 (3d Cir. 2000) (“Rule 48(a) . . . also permits courts
faced with dismissal motions to consider the public interest in
the fair administration of criminal justice and the need to
preserve the integrity of the courts.”); United States v. Cowan,
524 F.2d 504, 509–13 (5th Cir. 1975) (concluding that Rule
48(a)’s “history . . . belies the notion that [the Rule’s] only
scope and purpose is the protection of the defendant. . . . [I]t
[is] manifestly clear that the Supreme Court intended to clothe
the federal courts with a discretion broad enough to protect the
public interest in the fair administration of criminal justice”).
In the same vein, numerous federal appellate courts have
recognized that a court in receipt of an unopposed Rule 48(a) motion may consider the public interest in ruling thereon. See,
e.g., United States v. Romero, 360 F.3d 1248, 1251 (10th Cir.
2004) (“[A] court is generally required to grant a prosecutor’s
Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss unless dismissal is clearly
contrary to manifest public interest.” (quoting United States v.
Carrigan, 778 F.2d 1454, 1463 (10th Cir. 1985)); United States
v. Pimentel, 932 F.2d 1029, 1033 n.5 (2d Cir. 1991) (same);
United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 629 (5th Cir. 1981)
(“[E]ven when the defendant consents to the motion to dismiss,
the trial court, in extremely limited circumstances in
extraordinary cases, may deny the motion when the
prosecutor’s actions clearly indicate a ‘betrayal of the public
interest.’” (quoting Cowan, 524 F.2d at 514)); Ammidown, 497
F.2d at 622 (concluding it is “appropriate” for a trial judge to
consider the “protection of the public interest” “in considering
whether to deny approval  to dismissals of cases”); see also
Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 31–32 (1977) (per
curiam) (in reviewing a district court’s denial of an unopposed
Rule 48(a) motion, “agree[ing] with the Solicitor General that
. . . no societal interest would be vindicated” by continuing the
prosecution (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Young v.
United States, 315 U.S. 257, 259 (1942) (“The public interest
that a result be reached which promotes a well-ordered society
is foremost in every criminal proceeding. That interest is
entrusted to our consideration and protection as well as that of
the enforcing officers.”). …”
Anon – the majority did not deal with it because it did not need to be dealt with.
Paul–Yeah, that is usually the reason. Don’t deal with something that you don’t need to deal with. Paul, have you seen a lawyer, usually a young one, who has won his motion and keeps talking to the judge, putting his win, and the judge’s patience, in peril? Better to say ‘Thanks’ and get out of there before any minds are changed.
Young – take the W and walk away. 🙂
Unfortunately for you, 3rd circuit, 5th circuit, 10th circuit stuff is not BINDING on the D.C. Circuit. Fokker is binding. So is the Rinaldi case.
Learn the difference please between BINDING and PERSUASIVE authority. Law school articles, whether published or not are not binding on anybody. Although they do seem to be a focus of obsession for some folks.
“Unfortunately for you, 3rd circuit, 5th circuit, 10th circuit stuff is not BINDING on the D.C. Circuit. Fokker is binding. So is the Rinaldi case.”
Good point! I forgot that they probably did not learn that part of law in Book’s apprentice builder training or Seth’s beauty school.
Commit, the majority did not discuss the principle of the necessity of “leave of the court” to protect “the public interest in
the fair administration of criminal justice and the need to preserve the integrity of the courts”. The dissent did address this principle.
Rao and Henderson touched on it a bit, for example, “the dissent’s proposed free-ranging public interest inquiry reaches beyond anything in our precedents. … [The court’s] decision cannot turn on ‘what the judge independently consider[s] best in the public interest.'”
My guess is still that one of the Circuit Court judges will ask for the case to be reheard en banc, though I can’t know for certain, nor how the vote would go. Right now, I’m just trying to be patient. I don’t think the ruling is a good precedent, and I appreciate analyses like this one from Marty Lederman: https://www.justsecurity.org/71030/the-deeply-concerning-and-misguided-d-c-circuit-mandamus-ruling-in-the-flynn-case/
Commit, a dismissal is not a discussion, especially one divorced from the clear intent of Rule 48.
Book, I need a job. Can you tell your connections in LA to teach me some moves like Todrick?
Im desperate to be as good as him and honestly, Im tired of trolling for peanuts
Help a gurl out, hon.
That’s not Seth Warner, of course. It’s one of the many creepy gay Trumpers frequenting this blog.
Ok, you Trumpers. You busted me. I can not deal with all of these multiple suck puppets and it is causing me soooooo much inner turmoil. Yes, I twirl, spin, nip, tuck, pluck and gurlllll when ever I can especially when I interact with such manly men on here. Even Squeak looks good
im very conflicted. Come visit me at my show and throw money at me
They discussed Rule48 MORE THAN A BIT:, to wit:
Although Rule 48 requires “leave of court” before dismissing charges, “decisions to dismiss pending criminal charges—no less than decisions to initiate charges and to identify which charges to bring—lie squarely within the ken of prosecutorial discretion.” United States v. Fokker Servs. B.V., 818 F.3d 733, 742 (D.C. Cir. 2016).“To that end, the Supreme Court has declined to construe Rule 48(a)’s ‘leave of court’ requirement to confer any substantial role for courts in the determination whether to dismiss charges.” Id.; see also Newman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479, 480 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (“Few subjects are less adapted to judicial review than the exercise by the Executive of his discretion in deciding … whether to dismiss a proceeding once brought.”). The Judiciary’s role under Rule 48 is thusconfined to “extremely limited circumstances in extraordinary cases.” United States v. Hamm, 659 F.2d 624, 629(5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615, 621 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (emphasizing that Rule 48 motions must be granted “in the overwhelming number of cases”). More specifically, “[t]he principal object of the ‘leave of court’requirement is…to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment …when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.” Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22, 29 n.15 (1977). Rule 48thus“gives no power to a district court to deny a prosecutor’s …motion to dismiss charges based on a USCA Case #20-5143 Document #1848728 Filed: 06/24/2020 Page 5 of 38
6disagreement with the prosecution’s exercise of charging authority.” Fokker Servs., 818 F.3d at 742.1Whatever the precise scope of Rule 48’s “leave of court” requirement, this is plainly not the rarecase where further judicial inquiry is warranted. To begin with, Flynn agrees with the government’s motion to dismiss,and there has been no allegation that the motionreflectsprosecutorial harassment. Additionally, the government’s motion includes an extensive discussion of newly discovered evidence castingFlynn’s guiltinto doubt.SeeMot.to Dismiss, ECF No. 198. Specifically, the government points to evidence that the FBI interview at which Flynn allegedly made false statements was “untethered to, and unjustified by, the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn.”Id.at 2.In light of this evidence, the government maintainsit cannot “prove either the relevant false statements or their materialitybeyond a reasonable doubt.”Id.Insufficient evidenceis a quintessential justification for dismissing charges. See Ammidown, 497 F.2d at 623 (explaining that a motion to dismiss should be granted “if it is explained to the judge that there was … an insufficiency of evidence … or other similar consideration”).
Squeaky, they do not discuss the FACT that Rule 48 was written with the express purpose of necessitating “leave of the court” for cases where the defendant’s rights may be abused – which they discuss as if that was the only trigger – and cases where the prosecution may be corruptly aiding a connected defendant. This statement by the majority that you quoted is false:
“More specifically, “[t]he principal object of the ‘leave of court’requirement is…to protect a defendant against prosecutorial harassment …when the Government moves to dismiss an indictment over the defendant’s objection.”
JT does not address courts interest in protecting fair adminiistration of the law either, though he knows the history of Rule 48 – I sent him the link above which then goes to an in depth history of the Rule in an email and in a following column on the case he mentioned it in passing. NOw, no one on the Trump ream, including JT will address it.
The Rinaldi case (SCOTUS) tells us what “leave of court” means. The case law also indicates that a “presumption of regularity” attaches to a prosecutorial decision. All this is on pages 5, 6 and 7 of the Order. Here is some of it:
“The government’s representations about the insufficiency
of the evidence are entitled to a “presumption of regularity …
Page 6 of 38
in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.” United States
v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996) (quotation marks
omitted). On the record before the district court, there is no
clear evidence contrary to the government’s representations.
The justifications the district court offers in support of further
inquiry—for instance, that only the U.S. Attorney signed the
motion, without any line prosecutors, and that the motion is
longer than most Rule 48(a) motions—are insufficient to rebut
the presumption of regularity to which the government is
That is what would have covered any “monkey business” by the Good DOJ. But there was NO CLEAR EVIDENCE of any monkey business. In fact, the DOJ gave plenty of good reasons for dropping the prosecution, and Wilkins, the dissenting judge, complained that they gave too much good reasoning, which is bizarre.
Here is the link to the order. Read pages 5, 6 and 7 a few times.
The quote you cite does not address the duty of the court under Rule 48 to grant leave only after verifying that the defendant is not being abused and the fairness of the justice system is protected. I’ve read the majority and the dissent – they avoid the principle which is raised in teh dissent. JT avoids it as well.
Curious that anyone would support and reference losers like NYT, WaPo, et al.
They are a failure: at business, at abiding by professional journalistic standards, at convincing anyone they tell the truth
Pravda blushes at how badly the MSM peddles in lies
Let’s Be Honest is Crazed Idiot having a tantrum because this week has been a disaster for Trump.
“[Rep. Steve] Cohen (D-Tenn.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, plans to file a resolution calling for an investigation into whether Barr has committed impeachable conduct and circulated a letter asking other Democrats to support it.”
Hahahaha! Cohen. Hahahaha
Oh my, another impeachment hearing. What else is new?
Re: The Russian Bounty story. Scott Adams at 8:55-10:20 in. Least credible story.
NATE SILVER ON ” THIS WEEK”
This morning on ABC’s “This Week”, pollster geek Nate Silver presented stats that look like a 10 Alarm Fire to the Trump campaign. In one category Trump is looking at numbers that Walter Mondale faced at this point in 1984.
Silver said Trump is possibly not dead yet but the numbers are so grim that everything will have to go Trump’s way between now and November. But with Covid-19 surging in the Red States, it doesnt appear that anything is going Trump’s way at the moment.
Seth– thus proving that if all three networks and two cable channels and major newspapers spew anti-trump propaganda for three and one-half years, much of it bald faced lies, and, if a pandemic, most likely caused by Biden’s buddies in China, strikes at America’s economic heart, and if people like you are so filled with hate that you condemn those of us who support Trump daily but have no words for BLM or even the goons who shot and killed that teenage girl in Chicago, it will have an effect. But Goebbels and Alinsky already proved that, didn’t they?
Honest, there’s so much violence in Chicago that one could comment on ‘only’ that and nothing else. But if you think Chicago needs more guns, you are part of the problem.
It isn’t a gun violence problem; it is a homicidal black men problem.
Paint Chips, you can go back to 1927 to find a Republican Mayor of Chicago. You can go back just a matter of days and see that more people were killed in Chicago in one weekend then unarmed blacks by cops even if those blacks were guilty or killed by black cops.
There is something wrong in your head when you constantly overlook the fact that the most violent American cities are under Democrat Party control where thousands of black kids are killed every year. Apparently you don’t care about people being killed unless the dead person has a strong criminal history and is loaded with drugs.
The rest of us, not Democratics or peoople of the Democrat Party, care about all deaths no matter the color of their skin or anything else.
Alan, Republicans gave up on urban voters 50 years ago. They don’t even try to reach them anymore.
If you think ‘Second Amendment Rights’, tax cuts and opposition to abortion appeal to urban voters, then you are totally clueless!
Tax Cuts do nothing to fund mass transit and infrastructure projects. Yet Republicans prescribe tax cuts regardless of recession or expansion.
Therefore this idiotic trend of Republicans blaming urban problems on Democrats is about as stupid as blaming bad fishing seasons on Republicans. It’s just further proof that rightwing dumbs people down. And Alan is Exhibit # 1.
I’m trying to follow your logic. Republicans abandoned the needs of urban populations by sticking to policies they believed in. As a result, voters chose the Democrats and their policies. And somehow the Republicans are to blame for the voters choosing the disastrous policies of the Democrats. Sounds like a reasonable argument that urban populations should admit once and for they made a mistake.
Olly, certain contrarians insist The Edsell was really a good car. But consumers saw it differently. You’re attempting to argue that urban voters need to come around to Republicans. In no school of marketing is that a logical argument.
You’re attempting to argue that urban voters need to come around to Republicans.
Not at all. They first need to ask themselves if what they chose over the Edsel has been good for them? If not, why not. One thing they will realize is their plight is not the fault of the Edsel.
“Alan, Republicans gave up on urban voters 50 years ago.”
Maybe you are right (though I don’t think so) and the Democrats appealed to many by being weak on crime and doing nothing about the thousands of deaths from violence every year. It seems like a lot of these types of populations like riots and looting so perhaps they like what the Democrats give them. Who wants to go to work in the morning? The Democrats like to appeal to that type of person. Why should anyone have to pay for their own food? Democrats think they can continuously tax the other guy until there is nothing left and they certainly like corruption paying off vocal leaders that never give anything to those they lead.
Maybe those that vote for Democrats like weakness towards our enemies and like the idea of shipping jobs over seas so they can receive benefits instead of working. In today’s world there are a lot of reasons to vote Democrat but none of those reasons are any good.
I believe the Democrats figured out long ago that most voters prioritize issues that are most important to them and that list is very short. From my own experience, when I graduated high school, I had no idea about the political world. My first presidential election was in 1980 and I had already been in the Navy for nearly two years. I had one issue and that was military funding that would get me a pay raise. Nothing else mattered to me at the time. In comes Reagan and an 11.7% pay raise. For the next 20 years, I was locked in as a Republican. Even after I retired in 1999, I still continued to support the GOP, primarily because I was by nature conservative. I had formed a deep sense of self-reliance and I was content with the fact the GOP was predictable.
Leading up to the 2008 election, I had been in the banking industry for 5 years. When the banking collapse hit was the first time I started to examine government policy, banking history and of course civics and politics. It was the first time that I began to understand politicians of all stripes should not be trusted. I recall laughing at the “Trust in Government” metric. While the talking heads thought it was disastrous that it was low, I believed it should always be low. Then I saw the disconnect between that low number and the high percentage of politicians getting reelected. That was a real aha moment for me. Not only should we not trust the government, we shouldn’t trust the voters either. I nearly voted for Obama until that point. But I had learned to seek answers to questions and one question I could not get an answer on: What did Obama envision this country would look like when it had been fundamentally transformed? Fortunately there was just enough in his background to concern me he wasn’t worth the risk. What we are seeing today is the “poisonous” fruit of that vision.
Good post, Olly. A lot of people on this blog seem to have changed the party they vote for. I am one of those but I never thought that either party matched my beliefs. I would vote for candidates of either party. With time the Democrat party became worse and worse so when there was a Republican I liked and wished to support I changed parties. I have no love for either party but I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat today even if I liked him because giving power to Democrats is destructive to the nation and leads to rioting and looting.
Thanks Allan. I changed my registration to Independent after recognizing political parties warp the minds of voters. Then in the blink of an eye, the Democratic party stopped pretending it had any intention of respecting the rule of law and the equal security of rights. They have a bloodlust for power that would make the Tudor dynasty blush.
“Trump is possibly not dead yet”. Nate Silver do you give Biden a 71.4% chance of winning. That is what you gave Hillary days before the election. Why are you still in business making predictions? Seth why are you still believing him?
Bob, let’s see a link to your 74% claim. I believe Nate Silver said that raced was dead even the weekend before that election. But Hillary won the Popular Vote by s margin of 2%.
There is a 71.4% chance that By the time the election rolls around Biden will be unable to make a full sentence.
Here is 3 minutes of fun! The disconnect between white liberals and blacks:
Squeeky– I tried putting myself in the minds of my democrat friends and then I watched the video. I had to revert to being me about one minute in because I could feel my head beginning to explode.
If you actually had friends who are Democrats, I’d hope that they’d correct you when you insist on using “democrat” as an adjective.
True though I prefer the more apt moniker “Maoists.” “Red Guards” works too for the younger, woker versions.
Mespo– Beat me to it.
Beavis and Butthead return.
Commit–I actually think “democrat” works best in its infinitive verb form. “I’m going to democrat him” meaning you’re going to lie and then enlist others to help you lie and then repeat the lie so often it becomes the truth.
honestlawyer – don’t forget when you “democrat” him, you have Antifa and BLM to back you up.
add some rioting, burning of black owned business and boarding up police precincts, and youll have a bona fide Leftocrat
Rent a Mob – all of that was subsumed. 😉
No doubt your “democrat friends” think your insults are just dandy. /s
Some people on the left AND right “lie and then enlist others to help you lie and then repeat the lie so often it becomes the truth,” and other people on the left and right don’t. It’s not a Republican or Democratic behavior, and unlike you, I’m honest enough not to try to tar one party with it. I will, however, tar specific individuals who merit it, like Trump, who’s a compulsive liar.
Tell that to Joe Biden who said to Sarah Palin: ““This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, we’ve got ourselves a problem.” In the future when we talk to a group of people of your persuasion pehaps they should be referred to as Democratics.
Too bad you can’t intelligently debate anything the democrats here. Honest. Weak gruel coming from a supposed lawyer.
Debating or discussing with you is a waste. I remember your arguing endlessly on legal points you never really understood.
Young, of course it is a waste. He has zero credibility proven wrong all the time.
bythebook– perhaps if you wrote in actual sentences instead of “can’t intelligently debate anything the democrats here” you might get better responses.
Thanks, good video. I saw something similar awhile back on voter ID. Whites in Berkeley were sure blacks would have trouble getting ID. Residents of Harlem thought, correctly, that that was ridiculous.
I simply loathe people like the whites in the video.
Squeaky, any jerk-off can interview people on the street and then cherry-pick their comments in the editing bay. It takes no special talent to do that. Only the stupidest viewers put any stock in videos like these.
Who Cares About Michael Flynn?
With the ‘Russia Bounty On U.S. Troops’ story playing so large this weekend, it’s almost impossible to think Michael Flynn should be the issue this morning.
Trump enablers like Turley keep telling us the Mueller Probe was a frame-up. Yet these stories about Trump and Russia never stop surfacing. Which recalls that old saying, “If it walks like a duck..
This morning on ABC’s “This Week”, round table commenter Rahm Emanuel pointed out that all our NATO allies were most likely briefed on the Russian Bounty Story long before it made U.S. headlines. This more than likely explains why Angela Merkel saw no need for a G 7 Summit.
The fact that Trump was receptive to having Putin at the G 7 Summit makes a mockery of Trump defenders with regards to Michael Flynn and the ‘Russia Hoax Frame-Up’.
What’s more, John Bolton tells us that Trump was strangely partial to Turkish President Erdogan in addition to Putin. This casts additional suspicion on Michael Flynn who had been an unofficial lobbyist for Turkey.
So this idea that Michael Flynn has been cleared of anything seems woefully premature on this particular Sunday. And more than ever the Russia Probe looks wholly justified.
The last thing is the world Turley is is a “Trump enabler.” Either you actually do know that but your rooting interests have you worried or you’re someone who really hasn’t read all the declassified docs and the supporting weight of evidence that yes, the bureaucratic state, led by the Obama administration, spied on its political enemies using the full weight of the US intel communities, then once Trump was elected, decided to frame him to drive him out of office. Yeah, it’s like the worse crime in the history of the Republic and its clear that a few judges (some on the FISC) and Sullivan, are part of it. Sullivan likely has a few debts to pay.
I doubt that you’ve “read all the declassified docs and the supporting weight of evidence” yourself. The declassified docs plus additional relevant evidence (e.g., reports, court filings) comes to thousands of pages.
I know that I haven’t read all of it, and I expect that most people haven’t read all of it.
Have you read all of the thousands of pages?
Your claim that “the bureaucratic state, led by the Obama administration, spied on its political enemies using the full weight of the US intel communities, then once Trump was elected, decided to frame him to drive him out of office” is false.
TI Howard, you’re one of those mystery commenters who invariably pop out of the blue whenever I post. Funny how that goes.
As I said in my comments, The Russion Bounty story makes a mockery out of claims the Russia Probe was either a ‘hoax’ or ‘frame-up’.
Every time Republicans think they’ve cast convincing doubts on the Russia Probe, another issue come up to justify that probe. Trump simply can’t help but link himself to Putin one way or another.
TI, don’t worry about anything Commit says. He is terribly innaccurate and deals in trivia forgetting the important points. You seem to understand Paint Chips (Seth).
Associated Press: “President Donald Trump on Sunday tweeted approvingly [i.e., ‘great people’] of a video showing one of his supporters chanting ‘white power,’ a racist slogan associated with white supremacists. He later deleted the tweet and the White House said the president had not heard ‘the one statement’ on the video.”
Maybe Trump’s hearing is deteriorating like his thinking and speech are.
Or maybe he didn’t notice because he himself is racist.
I don’t think all Trump supporters are racist, but they’re all OK with a racist President.
The cleanup statement from White House spokesman Judd Deere:
“President Trump is a big fan of The Villages. He did not hear the one statement made on the video. What he did see was tremendous enthusiasm from his many supporters.”
Note that Deere doesn’t say “we don’t welcome racist supporters like that man” or “chants of ‘white power’ are racist and we condemn them” …
Commit– Might I suggest that you spend some time figuring out how your democrat heroes are going to celebrate July 4 if they cannot speak of our founding fathers without hurting people’s feelings. When you come up with something send it to the democrat’s brain trust although I’m not exactly sure where that is.
Might I suggest that you not beg the question (“they cannot speak of our founding fathers without hurting people’s feelings”), a common fallacy.
Might I also suggest that if you support Trump, you support a racist president who today retweeted a “white power” chant, and instead of dealing with it honestly, you’re trying to defect.
As an aside, I have to wonder just who you think my “democrat heroes” are and why you assume they’re living rather than passed away.
Black Community Elders Shutdown And Shame Anti-Statue Protest
Comments are closed.