• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Black Judge in Flynn case continues to defy higher court order to drop the flawed case

bongsaway said:
Did LBJ Say 'I'll Have Those N*****s Voting Democratic for 200 Years'?

Next.
Click to expand...

Snopes wrote up Johnson this way in your own link.

There’s no question that Lyndon Johnson, despite championing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signing it into law, was also a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private. For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “nigger bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”
 
bongsaway said:
Am I mistaken or did you present it as true? I know it said unproven, I can actually read. Did you notice where it said true? Neither did I.
Click to expand...

I added damning evidence from that same snopes commentary.

There’s no question that Lyndon Johnson, despite championing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signing it into law, was also a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private. For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “nigger bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”
 
Robertinfremont said:
Snopes wrote up Johnson this way in your own link.

There’s no question that Lyndon Johnson, despite championing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signing it into law, was also a sometime racist and notorious vulgarian who rarely shied away from using the N-word in private. For example, he reportedly referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 as the “nigger bill” in more than one private phone conversation with Senate colleagues. And he reportedly said upon appointing African-American judge Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court, “Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he’s a nigger.”
Click to expand...

I don't believe what snopes wrote was the point. You're saying it was true was the point or have you forgotten already?
 
less right said:
Was I wrong in assuming you're an adult?

I never expected to see the 'rubber and glue' gambit anywhere but nickelodeon debates.
Click to expand...

I went back to see your commentary to post 63. nope, no rebuttal of the democrat.
 
bongsaway said:
I don't believe what snopes wrote was the point. You're saying it was true was the point or have you forgotten already?
Click to expand...

I did not bring up snopes where it damned Johnson for his vicious anti black language.


Why would I believe he is innocent that time? That is how he talked.
 
Robertinfremont said:
I did not bring up snopes where it damned Johnson for his vicious anti black language.


Why would I believe he is innocent that time? That is how he talked.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of how he spoke in private. However unlike republicans who still speak the same way today, he didn't act on his prejudice, if anything he did the opposite. Republicans today still mean what they say in private and in public blame the radical left for today's woes.
 
marke said:
Will an American judge defy the law to illegally and immorally pursue a political agenda? Obviously.

What is his motivation? To please democrats? To further vent his vengeful wrath against an innocent victim he despises? Congress needs to impeach this lawless bozo.

Michael Flynn Case: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Case | National Review

Judge Emmett Sullivan refuses to roll over on DC Circuit Flynn ruling. Asks for En Banc hearing before the Appellate Court. If denied, it likely ends. If accepted, this could go on for some time.


Democrats falsely claim Trump is prejudiced against blacks, even though they have no actual evidence to support that felonious claim. However, it looks like this clown of a judge must be prejudiced against whites. Can we not safely draw that conclusion from the facts?
Click to expand...
I am thinking that the AG should subpoena the Judges tax records those of Cief Justice John Roberts too.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
less right said:
Because his wasn't a lame 'rubber & glue' reply to a comment.

I'm not taking sides here, just observing debate techniques.
Click to expand...

For a person claiming not to take sides, you sure did not prove it. What was his purpose of going off on Trump anus?
 
bongsaway said:
I'm well aware of how he spoke in private. However unlike republicans who still speak the same way today, he didn't act on his prejudice, if anything he did the opposite. Republicans today still mean what they say in private and in public blame the radical left for today's woes.
Click to expand...

We never did and do not ever talk that way. Johnson the bigot is who you defend.
 
less right said:
I thought I'd put your claim to a test.

On the first page of 'threads started' there are 10 with "black", 0 with "white".

I stopped there. The trend was not in your favor.
Click to expand...

And who started them? Mostly Leftists?
 
marke said:
Why would a judge like Sullivan defy the Justice Department and a court order to drop the flawed Flynn case?
Click to expand...

This is part of the process. It's completely within his authority as the assigned judge in this case to request an en blanc review. Every federal judge has the same right.

So YET AGAIN...the question for you is, What does Sullivan's race have to do with any of this? You can't seem to answer that, and I think we all know why.

The real disgrace here is the unprecedented behavior of the DOJ under Bob Barr.

It is not the judge's job to prosecute.
Click to expand...
You're parroting FauxNews with this ignorant comment.

It is the judge's responsibility to recognize the facts for what they are, as have been highlighted by the Justice Department, that Flynn was the victim of crooked political perversions of justice and judgment which involved illegal and immoral activities of partisan prosecutors.
Click to expand...
What a stupid comment.

It is NOT the "responsibility" of federal judges to accept "recommendations" from the DOJ. You are really just pulling **** out of your ass now.:roll:

Just because democrats and their dirty leftist hound dogs in the justice system think they are free to bend rules and ignore laws does not mean they are right to do so, even if they manage to get away with that crap.
Click to expand...

Aside from being another dumb statement, the FACT is that Sullivan is a LIFELONG CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN judge.

B]Help restore righteous judgment to our judicial system. Vote republican in 2020.[/B]
Click to expand...

:lamo
Good luck with that. No one likes, trusts or respects you white nattys....not even other Gopers.

And we are STILL waiting for you to answer the SAME questions I've been asking you since your OP.

Can you explain why the judge's race is relevant to the Flynn case?
Can you explain why you believe that Judge Emmet Sullivan...and lifelong CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN appointed to the federal bench by Pres. Bush...is trying to "please Democrats"?
 
yankintx said:
I left City data forums years ago for that exact reason. There politics forum is full of racist far right kooks. It seems as if they are migrating here at DP. Most are like Marke, a dangerous combination of bigoted Evangelical BS.
Click to expand...

Politicalforum is the same way. Lots of but what about the whites?! abusive trumpists and apartheid apologia.
 
Judge Sullivan hired the DC high powered trial lawyer Beth Wilkinson for one single specific reason, which is to argue the Flynn case before the full court of appeals.

Right or wrong Sullivan expects to be heard by the full court.

One doubts Wilkinson would have agreed to be hired by Sullivan had she doubted the full court of appeals would hear the case, especially since almost everyone knew the 3 judge panel of the appeals court that ruled for Flynn 2-1 was going to rule for Flynn, 2-1.

In short, both Sullivan and Wilkinson expected the 3 judge panel to rule against 'em and anticipated the full court to accept the case.

More to come.
 
Tangmo said:
Judge Sullivan hired the DC high powered trial lawyer Beth Wilkinson for one single specific reason, which is to argue the Flynn case before the full court of appeals.

Right or wrong Sullivan expects to be heard by the full court.

One doubts Wilkinson would have agreed to be hired by Sullivan had she doubted the full court of appeals would hear the case, especially since almost everyone knew the 3 judge panel of the appeals court that ruled for Flynn 2-1 was going to rule for Flynn, 2-1.

In short, both Sullivan and Wilkinson expected the 3 judge panel to rule against 'em and anticipated the full court to accept the case.

More to come.
Click to expand...
The interesting part - or one of the many interesting parts - is that Sullivan is almost certainly paying Wilkinson's full fee, out of his own pocket.

Which is almost certainly upwards of $2,000 an hour.

He's putting his money where his mouth is.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The interesting part - or one of the many interesting parts - is that Sullivan is almost certainly paying Wilkinson's full fee, out of his own pocket.

Which is almost certainly upwards of $2,000 an hour.

He's putting his money where his mouth is.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that in this instance at least Judge Sullivan is a wise man with his money.

And he has the prestige to draw from among the best legal talent, skills sets, experience, reputation in Beth Wilkinson.

The 11 active judges of the full appeals court will vote on whether to accept the case. Seven judges are appointed by Democratic Potus and four judges are appointed by Republican Potus.

As we just saw at Scotus, one can't always anticipate a court of judges just as one can't reasonably anticipate a jury outcome, but it looks like Judge Sullivan and the lawyer Wilkinson may stand get a good return on their investment. At least in so far as the court accepting the case is concerned. Something Sullivan and Wilkinson had a good inkling of all along.

Still however we'll have to see how this whole thingy goes.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The interesting part - or one of the many interesting parts - is that Sullivan is almost certainly paying Wilkinson's full fee, out of his own pocket.

Which is almost certainly upwards of $2,000 an hour.

He's putting his money where his mouth is.
Click to expand...

Disagree... I would bet Wilkerson is doing this pro brono... The marketing value of this case far outweighs any hourly billing..
 
BlueTex said:
Disagree... I would bet Wilkerson is doing this pro brono... The marketing value of this case far outweighs any hourly billing..
Click to expand...
She can't - if she represented him pro bono - or even gave him a discount - she'd be precluded from appearing in any cases in front of him.
 
marke said:
Will an American judge defy the law to illegally and immorally pursue a political agenda? Obviously.

What is his motivation? To please democrats? To further vent his vengeful wrath against an innocent victim he despises? Congress needs to impeach this lawless bozo.

Michael Flynn Case: Judge Refuses to Dismiss Case | National Review

Judge Emmett Sullivan refuses to roll over on DC Circuit Flynn ruling. Asks for En Banc hearing before the Appellate Court. If denied, it likely ends. If accepted, this could go on for some time.


Democrats falsely claim Trump is prejudiced against blacks, even though they have no actual evidence to support that felonious claim. However, it looks like this clown of a judge must be prejudiced against whites. Can we not safely draw that conclusion from the facts?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing about this...

When there's real racism in front of the libs we hear

Crickets

Bc everyone knows blacks can't b racist
 
marke said:
Let's say the judge found a way around standard judicial practices in order to defy the court order to dismiss the case. He may be slick, but he is not right due to the immorality and unjust nature of his partisan efforts and actions.

Help exorcise bitter liberal partisanship from our courts. Vote republican in 2020.
Click to expand...

So you can't name a single thing that he did that's illegal, or that he 'denied the law' and are compelled to admit that claim is a lie? Nice!

No Chipotle card for YOU!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom