- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:14 pm to cajunangelle
To win this, Flynn's team needed at least two of the following: Katsas, Henderson, and Rao. Those were the only three who voted against forcing Mazars to turn over Trump's tax returns to the House.
Flynn's team got two they needed so this will be an easy 2-1 decision. We got this baws.
Flynn's team got two they needed so this will be an easy 2-1 decision. We got this baws.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:15 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:17 pm to Sentrius
quote:
By the way, I can't wait to read Sullivan's response to Mandamus and see what kind of absurd rationale he comes up with. It's going to be a hoot.
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT...
I invoke the common law doctrine of Orangus Mano Mallum.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:19 pm to PhDoogan
magnimus aparti calipitor of the calapitor writ orangeus manith badith
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:24 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Emergency Petition for Writ of Mandamus
I remember my college days.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:26 pm to jatilen
quote:Gotcha,
To win this, Flynn's team needed at least two of the following: Katsas, Henderson, and Rao. Those were the only three who voted against forcing Mazars to turn over Trump's tax returns to the House.
Flynn's team got two they needed so this will be an easy 2-1 decision. We got this baws.
thanks. But what happens when Sullivan gets former, judges, lawfare bloggers, OMB democrats, Captain Crunch, Quisp, & King Vitamin: to write mean nasty lies about a Saturday night Massacre that never happened with Trump or Flynn? Does this appeals court get to say magnimus GFY; or do they still get to pontificate their politics? I mean their garbage is already published and others are in WaPo yo...
(Only the democrats and the govt swamp corruption can use WaPo to defend their corruption- it is comical but sad at the same time)
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:27 pm to N.O. via West-Cal
quote:
Government is invited to file a brief, too, but is not required to do so.
This means Wednesday's Sexy unsexy Boyfriend gets to slap Sullivan in the face with his enormous balls
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:32 pm to TheRoarRestoredInBR
quote:
At this point, I'd swear Soros and the cabal toss around cash bonuses for antics.
These people are owned. They do not have options now.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:33 pm to More&Les
He needs to answer to wtf happened with Van Grack first. I mean where is he? In Rod Rosenstein's house basement in a cool but nerdy gaming chair- playing Animal Crossings?
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:34 pm to Sentrius
quote:Should be black and white. What does the law say? Doesn't matter who appointed you. Corrupt judiciary.
Rao is the sure fire yes.
Henderson is going to be wild card and swing vote here but she should be a yes in the end.
By the way, I can't wait to read Sullivan's response to Mandamus and see what kind of absurd rationale he comes up with. It's going to be a hoot.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 3:46 pm to Diamondawg
It’s not necessarily who appointed you as much as who believes in doing their job at the expense of not being invited to the “cool” parties.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:01 pm to Sentrius
Sullivan now understands that he will have to go to work to defend his edicts.
He will take a big fade , withdraw his opposition to Flynn, and disappear only to show up on a nonprofit board of directors
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:04 pm to Trevaylin
Has Hank weighed in yet to tell us how this is wrong, overreach, possibly unconstitutional and bad jurisprudence?
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 5:30 pm
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:05 pm to teke184
quote:
What’s more likely to happen, Sullivan reverses course and dismisses or he goes before the panel to argue how his horseshite is above board?
Dismisses without arguing
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:16 pm to HailToTheChiz
What if Sullivan carries on as Obama will blackmail order him to do?
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:21 pm to Fun Bunch
NM. I found the case talked about. U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith. Stood for the proposition that a court shouldn't advance arguments, rather should be passive and rule only upon the arguments set forth by the litigants. I guess this goes to Sullivan interjecting the question of "perjury" into the discussion, since perjury was never alleged or asserted by the prosecution. Only question I have is whether a Motion to Dismiss is the proper vehicle to bring after a Judgment of Conviction has been entered. On the Civil side, you'd have to file a Motion to Vacate the Judgment rather than a Motion to Dismiss the Case. Will be interesting to read Sullivan's response.
This post was edited on 5/21/20 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:24 pm to SSpaniel
quote:
Has Hank weighed in yet to tell us how this is wrong, and overreach, possibly unconstitutional and bad jurisprudence?The
Not yet. I keep checking though. You might not know this, but Hank is an attorney and far smarter than anyone else on the site.
At least that is what he told me.
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:39 pm to teke184
quote:Legality of a Vastum Latrina decree?
how his horseshite is above board?
Posted on 5/21/20 at 4:39 pm to SSpaniel
He does have explaining to fo
do because he is on record as saying amicus briefs have no place in criminal matters
do because he is on record as saying amicus briefs have no place in criminal matters
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News