Judge Sullivan is making a point to say ‘sentencing’ phase had ‘already began’ for Mike Flynn when the motion to dismiss was made. Flynn plead guilty and was being sentenced when DOJ argued they didn’t think they could prove he lied. 🤔
Sullivan seems concerned with ‘politically motivated dismissals’. That is the very issue at the heart of the case before him. He uses Judge Gleeson’s concern about not eroding integrity of the judiciary. Says rule 48a is not to serve as a rubber stamp for prosecutor decisions.
For broad definition and up to speed purposes, rule 48a has to do with the judge dismissing case the prosecution no longer wishes to bring. It’s more than that, but just level setting for today.
Judge Sullivan says the leave of court (48a) turns on two reasons: Textual reasons or proof positive of prosecutorial misconduct.
Gleeson basically argues you can’t be corrupt about politically motivated dismissals.
Like c’mon, what the hell are we doing here?
It sounds as though someone is live streaming this and there is crazy cross talk on the phone line.
Just as the judge wraps up his summation he asks if the department of justice agrees. DOJ says they agree it was ‘largely’ accurate. Judge wants to know what they disagree with. The phone cuts out. 🤬
Wondering if I try to dial back in. Might be shut out. If I stay on the line and they come back that would be great. Now hearing beeps as though some have made their decision. The longer the pause in beeps, the longer they are holding out hope for the judge to return.
I used the noodle. Called in on another phone. Stayed on the other line. No sound there either. But there are 300 of us still hanging on. #FlynnHearing
Recess called until 12:35 to address technical issues. Thank you @MMineiro_CNS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
We are in the Both Sides Era. For what seems the past decade, we have been subjected to both sides of the news, normalizing the weird, accepting the inappropriate, and moving on from the unforgivable.
Both sides are not the same.
A wee Sunday morning coffee🧵👇🏻
We have been so conditioned to Both Sides everything that we immediately fall into one side or the other. We are sorting ourselves based on memes and shallow thinking. Reporters complaining about hotel experiences due to the DNC running late, isn’t news. That’s a yelp review.
Have you noticed trump is on both sides of every issue? Probably not, because the “press hasn’t yet learned how to report on trump.” Why is covering trump any different from what they learned in journalism school?
Why not ask him about his incongruities? Or a follow up question?
Did you ever hear the phrase: “they have so much money they don’t know what to do with it.”? Not a problem, I’ve ever run into myself, but Project 2025 is just that. Billionaires want to be bankers. They want to sell off our governmental oversight to private companies they own.
Here is Project 2025. There isn’t one part of our lives this won’t touch. Think it doesn’t mean you? There is no provision to exclude from its effects those who vote for fascism so choose your candidate wisely.
Here is the part where they will abolish the federal reserve. It will be replaced by currency they can “create” and then lend out at their own interest rates.
“There is no place for political violence” has been a pretty common refrain throughout the weekend. It really got me thinking. ”Political violence” must be one of those “you know it when you see it” types of things.
Let’s see…
🧵👇🏻
Political violence strikes me as a visual medium but there are so many things that occur before we see the blood that I think might be political violence. Are we just numb to it? How do we define what is political violence and what is just violence? Why is it different?
Are Texas Gov Greg Abbott’s razor balls floating in the river, considered “political violence”? Kind of. I mean, the idea is people from south of the US shouldn’t be allowed to come here and take our jobs.
Political.
To deter from this, razor balls in the river.
Violence.
There’s been a lot said about Joe Biden since the debate. I, along with so many of you, watched it play out in real time as respected news transmitters read out ‘inside texts’ from knee jerk reactionaries.
After much thought, I won’t be voting for Joe Biden because he’s old.
🧵👇🏻
I’ll be voting for Joe Biden because he’s team democracy. I’m voting for ideas he represents. I’m voting for the team of people he can put together. I’m voting for my own interests and for your ability to vote for your own interests. I didn’t vote for him last time either, btw.
In 2020, I voted for a November 5th, 2024 election. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were the only options on the ballot that allowed this. I colored in Joe and Kamala’s bubble to keep the lights on long enough for us to have this election. Like many of you, I voted team democracy.
I am loathe to do predictions. However, there are some things you just can’t help but see coming. Project 2025 is a blinking red alarm and we all need to be aware of the stakes of this election. Please familiarize yourself with EO11246, be discriminating voters.
A wee thread🧵👇🏻
On September 24th, 1965 President Lyndon Johnson signed Executive Order 11246. EO11246 established Equal Opportunity Employment. It includes Non-Discrimination in Government. It includes Non-Discrimination Employment by Government Contractors and Subcontractors.
Focus on Non-Discrimination Employment by Government Contractors and Subcontractors. In Sub Part B under Contractor’s Agreements, contractors agree to not discriminate against employees based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Trust me…
🧵👇🏻
The above is the oath the President takes at 12 noon on January 20. Typically, it is administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court but there is no law that makes that a requirement. You could have your gran do it. So why is it *usually* the Chief Justice?
For this thread let’s assume the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is there as a symbol of the law. Chief Justice Roberts in a way represents the Judicial Branch of our government on the day it grants power to the person who will symbolize the Executive Branch.